> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rosenberg Ben > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 12:49 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [U2] Comparison Unidata and Universe > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dawn M. Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > I don't know if this is true, but it is the way > > I think of it -- UniData is more tied to the OS > > (which was UNIX from the start) and, therefore, > > a bit harder to work with the Windows/NT version. > > Sorry Dawn, you've got this backwards. > > UniData wasn't more UNIX-centric. > (Unless you believed Unidata Inc.'s marketers.) > > UniData was more C-centric, > and more OS-independent. > > UniData was running on both VMS and on UNIX > back when UniVerse was running only on UNIX.
Good point. I experienced some pain with Windows NT and that is likely where my misconception came from. > UniData used (and still uses) standard libraries > and standard system calls more than UniVerse does. > > You can see this on Unix by running a benchmark, > where you'll see that UniData uses more "system" > cpu time, while UniVerse uses more "user" cpu time. > (Typically, UDT is 70% "system" and UV is 70% "user".) > > When UniData was initially ported to VMS, it compiled > and ran okay on the very first attempt. Of course, > that was followed by a lot of VMS-specific features > before the VMS version was ready for Prime-time, > but the use of standard libraries made it easier > to port UDT to a new host o/s platform. > > A contractor in Seattle who converted both > UniVerse and UniData to NT said that UniData was > easier. In addition to UniData using more > standard C libraries, the other reason for this > was that UniData was already running on VMS, > which was in some ways a precursor to NT. Interesting ... was it Digital folks who went over to Microsoft or what is it that makes VMS a bit of a precursor to NT? > UniVerse being slightly more of a VM (virtual > machine) means that UniVerse needs more os-specific > code for each host o/s platform > under which that VM runs. Yes and my impression, although I'll believe I was wrong about it, was that because UniVerse is slightly more of a VM, it shields the user-developer more from the underlying OS. > You can argue either way as to whether the > additional platform-specific code in UniVerse > leads to them being better "integrated" with > the host o/s, but you can't argue with the fact > that the architecture makes it slightly harder > to port UniVerse to a new platform. But easier for the end-developer to port their code from one platform to another? Just wondering as that was my perception, which might be unfounded. Thanks --dawn ------- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
