> Interestingly, as a Rexx fan, I tried people to move from JCL to Rexx Isn't that like convincing people to move from a hammer to a screwdriver? They have different purposes, and neither can do the job the other was created for. It is not at all unusual to have a batch job that, among other things, runs REXX code.
> Introducing one more ‘official’ scripting language would fragment the > landscape even more. I would love to see IBM integrate and support all of the common open source languages fully on TSO, as long as it isn't at the expense of the languages they currently support. > 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. Absolutely. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of René Jansen [rene.vincent.jan...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 8:40 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Top 8 Reasons for using Python instead of REXX for z/OS 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 <dcrayf...@gmail.com> 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
