OK, that makes sense then....I'm not a big fan of the oo stuff that has been layered on top of Rexx myself.
DJ On 03/20/2013 10:51 AM, David Boyes wrote: >> A good idea, David, but why not ooRexx? > > Mostly that the extensions to do the objects and some of the syntax changes > don't seem natural to me. I'm more of a procedural programmer, and my > exposure to Smalltalk forever exploded any desire to do OO programming. I > like the simplicity and elegance of the original REXX -- it's *just* complex > enough to be serious, but not too complex for my mother to learn (on a > AS/400, no less). > > Oxford University used to maintain a REXX port (not Regina). I might still > have the source; I'd just need to compile it with the p-compiler. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit > http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For more information on Linux on System z, visit > http://wiki.linuxvm.org/ > -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
