Nobody is denying the value of that code. I wrote thousands of lines of REXX code for system automation back in the 90s
I just can’t find a use case for writing new REXX code today. Everything had changed. > On 8 Jan 2022, at 19:40, René Jansen <rene.vincent.jan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well I am explicitly not reacting on another round of namecalling. What is > worrying to me is the denial of the value of all existing interfaces in the > OS and infrastructure to the standard scripting language on the platform, > making the ‘modernization’ effort a reduction to uss, which will be hated by > everybody used to Linux. But if the reaction consists of ‘unprofessional’, > I’m done. > > >> On 8 Jan 2022, at 05:43, David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Why not compile lua to support utf8? >> >> Your unrelenting love of REXX worries me. it’s the perfect example of >> personal preference over a functional requirement which is unprofessional >> and a red flag. >> >>>> On 8 Jan 2022, at 14:57, René Jansen <rene.vincent.jan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I looked at your list and I am happy to see that these include the things >>> you find important. JS is undeniably a big factor but “the good parts” is a >>> thin booklet. As is groovy - slow and nevery had any appeal to me, just >>> looks messy. I quite like Ruby as an idea but slow as molasses. >>> >>> Today I looked at Lua, and although quite elegant, small and snappy, I am >>> really disappointed that this is one of those languages that gives you >>> wrong answers for numeric problems and having unicode support in a utf8 >>> library that is different from the string functions - that is just funny. I >>> am not implying that all Rexx implementations shine in this regard, but >>> that is just neglect. NetRexx does, however, as it does in unlimited >>> decimal precision arithmetic. >>> >>> Of course NetRexx can use the Java stream API for functional programming. >>> That remark is just as odd as ‘it only has one type’. The fact that it is >>> from 1995 and can use features that only appeared in Java 8 - personally I >>> find that telling about the quality of the design. But I am not telling you >>> that you need to like it - like the way we are told that we now need to >>> like Python more than Rexx, while it cannot do what we need to do - for all >>> the wrong reasons. >>> >>> Looking at your list of requirements I think Scheme had it quite covered. >>> Some of them are gimmicky and some seem useful. None of them address the >>> core qualities of the mainframe, which are Channels, packed decimal, DB2, >>> CICS and COBOL (as long as you forbid dynamic memory). >>> >>> I think the discussion has strayed too much from what sparked it, which is >>> a hitpiece with 8 untruths about Python and Rexx. Yes we like all languages >>> to be available, and well maintained on z/OS. Please provide interfaces and >>> precompilers for the main infrastructure. It is remarkably odd that IBM >>> does not invest in the things that made the platform what it is, but it is >>> not my problem. If the message is that the mainframe now can run the same >>> software as the Raspberry Pi or your generic AWS instance, so be it. >>> >>> I think you will find that other people are emotionally attached to their >>> tools and programming languages, it is a human thing. Also, I found that >>> not all people can easily switch between a large number of ever-changing >>> programming languages; which is meant as a compliment to you; but >>> nevertheless very true. >>> >>> So I thank you all for a very interesting discussion. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> René. >>> >>>>> On 7 Jan 2022, at 20:53, David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I could go on. Even Java supports functional programming since Java 1.8 >>>> and which introduced the streams API. It's unusual to see and old school >>>> loop in modern Java code. Even C++ has lambda's. >>>> >>>> I missed "closures" on my list which code hand in hand with "functions as >>>> first class objects". Very powerful, for example in Kotlin you can easily >>>> create type safe builders (DSLs) >>>> https://kotlinlang.org/docs/type-safe-builders.html. >>>> That's why I have absolutely no interest in NetRexx. I have far better >>>> options on the JVM. I don't get emotionally attached to programming >>>> languages. If a better one becomes available I will quite happily switch >>>> as I have done >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
