On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 08:47:16 -0500, Walt Farrell wrote: > >I think we arrived at this idea because someone suggested it would be nice if >the open-sourced JIT technology that started this thread could be applied to >REXX. Then someone else said we don't really need that, because NetREXX >fulfills the desire to have REXX code that can be JITted. But then someone >else pointed out that NetREXX can't do all the same kinds of things that REXX >can, especially with respect to TSO and ISPF integration. > >Therefore, as NetREXX can't substitute for REXX, we still have the desire (if, >perhaps, not the need) for a true classic REXX that can make use of the JIT >technology. > That's two out of three (perhaps of four):
o JIT optimization o Drop-in compatibility with classic Rexx o Functional extensions of NetRexx or OoRexx. About a half-century ago, before I had brushed against an s/360, a graduate student fresh out of Yale lauded OS (MVT?) for a design integrity: any program in any language could seamlessly call a subroutine in any other language; even the OS invoking main programs. All used the same CALL interface. I asked, SNOBOL4? LISP? "Why, of course!" I was skeptical even then. TSO with its CPPL, and Rexx have surely broken the mold. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
