+1 for Ren'e arguments. Remember that modernization is valuable but also introduces new security issues. I'll wait with Phytom until they'll have a compiler and complete set of libraries on the mainframe (or be part of LE...).
ITschak ITschak Mugzach *|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Continuous Monitoring for z/OS, x/Linux & IBM I **| z/VM coming soon * On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 3:41 PM René Jansen <[email protected]> wrote: > My impression is that this sudden ‘article’ is linked to this ‘modernise > the mainframe’ effort. It is funny that you mention Yaml because of course > that is one of the fashionable formats that will have their 14 days of fame > - "what should the interface be ? “ GML, HTML, XML, JSON, and now YAML. The > fact that no-one made a Rexx library for that yet, indicates that is not > often used. If you then look at the source in Python, it would be clear > that it was better done in Rexx. > > The argument that more libraries is better should have skyrocketed > NetRexx: you can script in it, and it has all those Java libraries > available and for free. > > The thing people - and the IBM managers guiding this - should realise, is > that attacking Rexx does not help the ‘modernise the mainframe’ effort at > all. Rexx is a language with a loyal following, and you should not offend > those people. On other platforms, there is a plethora of scripting > languages available, and if it is not there, it is one command to the > package manager away - sudo [apt | yum} install regina-rexx - and you are > underway. The mainframe is of course a different animal where the choice is > limited. Now producing propaganda for Python causes friction in companies > running z/OS - there is infrastructure management that decides what is run > where, and there will be a group very unhappy that they cannot run Python > yet, and another group that will be unhappy because they now have to do > Python when that moment has arrived. There is no package repository for > people to make their choices. If you are serious about modernising, I would > respectfully suggest to solve that problem first: maybe more people would > like Perl, Ruby, Lua, Scala, Kotlin. Like there were recent effort by IBM > with PHP and Swift that apparently got nowhere. And maybe to use just the > one library you did not include in this Python distro, whichever that may > be. > > But wait: then it would not be the mainframe anymore, that controlled > environment that people trust. In the coming years, you will regret that > choice, when one of the Python libraries sprouts a ‘log4j’. > > The other thing is: when introducing one more scripting language, all the > Rexx execs will not be gone overnight (even if attempted, that would be a > senseless, equity destroying act). When Rexx appeared, on TSO, somewhere in > 1988/1989, there already was a lot of CLIST, and I had to maintain more of > those than I cared for. Some of them became Rexx execs, but most of these > were from IBM or vendor companies. And of course there still is JCL - that > spectre of a proto-scripting language. Interestingly, as a Rexx fan, I > tried people to move from JCL to Rexx (superior control structures, > parameters, etc) for years, but really nobody bought into that. It seems > that JCL, with all its shortcomings, contributes to that safe feeling of > stability the platform offers. > > Introducing one more ‘official’ scripting language would fragment the > landscape even more. Now people new on the platform would have to learn > CLIST, Rexx, JCL *and* Python. It would complicate the situation for new > people on the workforce, who would probably be better off learning COBOL or > Java. I am not a stakeholder in this, and I wish IBM all kinds of luck with > it, but I do object to a ‘blog’ about Rexx filled with falsehoods. People > more respectful to their own traditions and intellectual property would > have updated Rexx to the current ANSI standard, and would have introduced > the object oriented variant decades ago. > > Of course you all are entitled your opinions about your favourite > programming languages, and editors, and platforms. For most of us, those > are a large part of our days. I have to laugh at ‘light years better’ and > ‘in a different league’. In fact, they are more or less the same, and most > of those languages do exist solely because IBM bought into the Open Source > thing a little late - and of course Microsoft sabotaging Rexx where it > could, just because it was a better BASIC. > > Best regards, > > René. > > > > On 19 Dec 2021, at 00:54, David Crayford <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I agree with almost everything he says. Python is light years better > than REXX. Of course, that's subjective but it IMO it's in a different > league. I've been working with YAML configs recently and Python has a very > nice YAML library. No such luck with REXX, especially classic REXX on z/OS. > >>> > >>> Just FYI, if anyone doesn't know, the person who wrote this article > is an > >>> IBM employee, with almost 37 years with them. He is on LinkedIn at: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
