Two short comments to add some heat to the discussion;
sorry for that ... I have to leave for the next two days, so I will not
be able to follow
what happens, but anyway:
1) to David: this is only personal view, not a valid argument (not
backed by facts);
IMO REXX has many unique features which make it easy and comfortable to use
not found elsewhere. I wrote a generator, which creates ASSEMBLER
programs to
convert SOAP messages to COBOL structures (CommAreas) for CICS on VSE
completely in REXX
(as a replacement for an IBM tool, which didn't work well ... 2000 lines
of REXX).
This has been done, because REXX was the best language available at the
customer's site
for the task. In the 1990s, I wrote a plotter server to support a
CalComp plotter in REXX
(on VM); the pictures drawn by the applications were adjusted on the
plotter output
optimizing the use of the paper and every 15 minutes the results of the
optimization
was sent to the plotter. The REXX was active all the time 24/7 in a VM
machine running
DISCONNECTED. The pictures were sent as RDR files to this machine, and
the plotter
was attached as PRT.
2) to Charles: 13 hours? My C solution would have taken me half an hour
at most,
if only writing the file is counted and not the collecting of the
information,
which I cannot comment on, because I don't know the complexity.
Kind regards
Bernd
Am 30.06.2022 um 08:58 schrieb David Crayford:
REXX is never the right language unless you have no choice, such as
using an API such as SDSF or an environment such as Netview.
On 30/06/2022 11:21 am, Charles Mills wrote:
Charles knows C++ so I don't understand why he would pick REXX
One factor is that my deployment machine does not have a C++ compiler
and does not share DASD with my development machine. So for C++ the
cycle is
- Edit in IDE on Windows
- Build in IDE on Windows; get to clean compile
- Upload to development machine
- Build on z/OS (hopefully no z-specific errors; if so, iterate)
- Copy load module from development to deployment (complex load
module FTP)
- Test
- Repeat as necessary
For Rexx OTOH the cycle is
- Edit in text editor in Windows
- Upload to deployment machine (simple ASCII text upload)
- Test
- Repeat as necessary
You need a better IDE. I recommend Intellij.
A much faster development cycle.
I built, tested and deployed the new HLASM module and the Rexx code
in about 13 hours billable (including all the discussion here). I
doubt that I could have done that with C++. There is more to "best
language for the job" than elegance, conciseness, "modernness" and
efficiency of execution.
For Python there is no way of knowing, but I think I might have spent
that much time trying to get Python downloaded and installed. IBM
manages to make the most simple tasks difficult. For one of the two
machines I would have had a "business" or "legal" issue that might
have taken 13 hours; certainly would have taken weeks elapsed. And
that is before any "learning Python" issues. I am sure it is a
wonderful language, but I think it is wishful thinking to say "see,
you had some API issues with Rexx; therefore you would have been
better off with Python." I suspect I might have had some API issues
with my first Python program. <g>
Also, I get great Rexx community support right here on this forum.
Where would I go for mainframe-specific Python community support? I'm
sure there is some relevant forum, but how active is it? OT, but I
have gotten pretty unhappy with Stack Overflow. Too many questions
there now seem to draw a "not a perfect question" rebuke from some
self-important moderator.
BTW, I do think I might want to learn Python. I bought an O'Reilly
textbook. I have a six-hour flight coming up, and I think that it
might be just perfect for learning Python.
Charles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
