+1 BTW My TSO REXX began with IBM's MVS/XA in 1990 and not withMike Cowlishaw's original 1984 REXX.
Rexx appeared, on TSO, somewhere in 1988/1989 On 19/12/2021 13:40, René Jansen 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 <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
