> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of David Crayford > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 1:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Quote on Slashdot.org > > On 1/10/2013 7:23 PM, Thomas Berg wrote: > > Personally I am of the opinion that a programming language is for the > benefit of the programmer, to be least "hindered" in the coding. > > It should help the coding and minimize both syntax pondering and > keystrokes. > > > > A programming language should not have a role of disciplining the > programmer. That should be done outside of the language, whether it be > through a human review or using an automatic tool. > > > > That way the programmer could with the least effort construct a > correct program. If the program is not correct the additional effort > caused by that is not exceeding what would be caused by a "disciplining" > language in the same case. > > > > Note that a bad programmer makes bad programs regardless of the > language he uses. > > > > If I take REXX as an example, although it has its limitations and > rough edges, it have 4 important advantages IMHO: > > > > 1. It lives up the principle of "least astonishment" in syntax. > > > > 2. Its functionality and syntax is oriented towards the end goal of > the code effort. > > > > 3. It lives up to the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid). > > > > 4. It minimizes the keystrokes for the programmer. > > > > Agreed. But there are some issues with REXX. > > 1. It's bloody slow! I recently ported a language that's just as simple, > more powerful and up to two orders of magnitude faster! > 2. The lack of a module system is a DRY obstacle. > 3. It's difficult to write external packages in a high-level language > without jumping through a lot of hoops.
True, but: 0. I used it as an example of syntax and principles. 1. As I often compile it and if necessary optimize at a high level/use an external tool I seldom have problems with that. (To where did you port what ? Curious if z/OS...) 2. I'm not quite sure what you mean. Trying to guess an answer: I use (when compiled) /*%INCLUDEs when practical and statically include REXX functions when performance is needed. 3. Well, I suppose so, haven't tried that other than a COBOL panel exit to call a rexx (which of course is a bit different case). BTW, have you an example of that ? Best Regards Thomas Berg ___________________________________________________________________ Thomas Berg Specialist zOS\RQM\IT Delivery SWEDBANK AB (Publ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
