On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Martin Packer <[email protected]> wrote: > Not to dismiss the sample at all but...
> ... this really shows off the grottiness of Classic REXX as a language... > I have incantations just like these (and knowing enough of object-oriented > languages and Object REXX) I wonder why we haven't ported Open Object Rexx > to z/OS yet... Most of this example would be MUCH better if implemented in > Object REXX. For example alloc_member and alloc_dsname stems could be > attributes/properties/members of a single object. (And increment and > decrement operators wouldn't be a bad idea either - though in THIS case > some form of collection class would probably be better.) You're misinterpreting (sic) the goals of Rexx, and calling it "grotty" in the wrong context. It's like complaining about the cargo capacity of your motorcycle, or the acceleration of your semi (truck). Classic Rexx was designed to be easy to use, even for end-users. The fact that it's gone way beyond that and is used for full-fledge applications is a tribute to its elegance and power. Hardly grottiness. If you showed the average non-programmer Object Rexx, they wouldn't "get it" and wouldn't use it. And loading it up with operators like increment and decrement not only won't help, but will hurt. -- ...phsiii Phil Smith III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
