On 2 Mar 2023, at 13:36, David Crayford <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2/3/23 19:48, René Jansen wrote: >>> I think 99% of the folks on this forum want a language that can run in a >>> TSO/ISPF environment hosted in PDS data sets. Lua can do that and it's >>> orders of magnitudes faster then REXX with the advantage of package >>> management. The next gen guys don't use TSO/ISPF and they're going to use >>> Python and couldn't give a hoot about NetRexx. >> NetRexx can and does, using the IBM jzos classes, which are delivered with >> its JVM’s. > > Hmm, I don't think so. NetRexx programs can not reside in PDS data sets. I > don't get the point of NetRexx.
This is getting silly. While you would normally compile or run the NetRexx interpreter (it can do both) from ZFS there is no reason you could not store the source in a PDS. You can run everything from JCL if you wanted. If you don’t get the point, I cannot really help you. NetRexx is an oo variant of the Rexx language by the creator of Rexx. It can run everywhere where there is a JVM (JRE) available. This is a larger environment than just our PC’s or mainframes. I have shown you that it performs rather well, given that it produces Java bytecode. It integrates with the environment that hosts the JVM rather well, depending on the JVM support for that. The discussion went from performance to all over the place. > > >> They can do a lot more with conventional MVS than LUA, I am sure. > > Don't agree. Lua4z has a heap of integrations including TSO/ISPF without > VDEFINE. And you can write packages and applications using PDS data sets. > REXX is impoverished in this respect and you can't share state or data > structures between modules. > /https://lua4z.github.io/Lua4z//// > I am not going to compare what Lua4z can do compared to IBM jZos with regard to interacting with its environment. I always regarded Java as a safer bet for reusability of my code, and I have not been disappointed. I did not encounter a lot of ISPF dialogs in Lua yet, and I hope people keep writing them in Rexx or Rexx370. >> Not that anyone would do that, of course, being so much easier with ISPF and >> Rexx and their shared variable pool. I have built dialogs in COBOL and PL/1 >> but nothing beats Rexx for that, having not to VDEFINE everything first. > > That's subjective. I find it much easier to write code in Lua. A programming > language that supports OO, meta-programming, functional programming and > co-routines with just 20 reserved words is a thing of absolute beauty and a > testament to the designers. REXX is a niche language that's only used to any > great extend on mainframes and it's popularity is constantly eroding. The > mainframe needs to keep pace with the industry. > A very true word. And in trying to cast it in the image of Unix, it will always be some steps behind, and be an eternal disappointment to next gen people. Look at every github project or distribution repo, s390x is always a hanger-on. It is a platform of unique strength. What is the point of WebSphere when you have CICS? What is the point of then still running WebSphere on Java version 8? Why not build the ultimate cloud machine with all the middleware API’s but implemented in the best tools there are? Why doesn’t the next ChatGPT run on a Z17 with a Prolog/Asm combo using these enormous address spaces with all these new instructions on a small number of CPU’s instead of letting those datacenters use up all our natural resources with dinky but power hungry - even when idling - X86 machines. The problem with all the Z propaganda (still need to change that name, IBM) is that all these things about Green and Cloud were true, but nobody invested in the software for it, not like the /360 investment of the early sixties. The problem now is pretending that it is leading edge, by running late and behind in rebuilding Unix tools from decades ago. The new mainframe should not be the old Unix, we have the new Unix in Linux and on the Mac already, and WSL for Windows people. IBM does need to invest in software for the mainframe, not to divest from it. And it should stop badmouthing its own past. There is really nothing better for workloads consisting of batch, CICS, COBOL, MQ and DB2 in a sysplex. It could be the base for new workloads but milking out the work from the 60-80’s and not investing in it will not bring that future. Future Systems (FS) was a great idea if we look at whats left from it, but it died because it was so closed that even IBM’s own architects could not understand it all in one piece - because it was closely guarded by the internal police. We are fortunately past OCO (except for the very things we speak about - are we afraid that someone else will build a cloud with it?) and it is already clear that open source runs rings around closed source work. It is a shame we cannot reuse the many brilliant parts of VM and MVS, DB2 and CICS-still. Rexx was one of the first scripting langauges and it is still a great improvement on many of its successors, many of which are only there because it was open sourced too late. I’ll let you have the last word, and thanks for the pointers to that Primes github. best regards, René. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
