Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Jon Perryman]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 18:14:50 +, Farley, Peter  
wrote:

>From the testing I have done so far,
> My suspicion (untested) is that the Rexx script itself is automagically 
> converted to EBCDIC as the interpreter
> is reading it, so that the interpreter only sees EBCDIC text.

Default REXX input routines would include support for UNIX files which are 
encoded. It makes sense they would make this generic and support multiple 
character sets. Why force it to only support the default encoding?

> the z/OS Unix Rexx interpreter SAY command only writes in EBCDIC.  

On other Unix variants, STDOUT does not perform encoding and it is typically 
performed by the application (language support). Imagine the difficulty in 
translating characters but skipping terminal commands without understanding the 
intentions of the app.  I would expect z/OS Unix to be the same and It would 
make sense that it is EBCDIC.

SAY is often environment specific. Rexx provides exits that are user 
replaceable allowing common functionality to be environment specific.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Farley, Peter]

From the testing I have done so far, the z/OS Unix Rexx interpreter SAY command 
only writes in EBCDIC.  My suspicion (untested) is that the Rexx script itself 
is automagically converted to EBCDIC as the interpreter is reading it, so that 
the interpreter only sees EBCDIC text.

On a “real ASCII” system I would expect ASCII hex output for that example.

Peter

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 1:48 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness


On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:59:21 +, Farley, Peter wrote:

>

>I have recently done some experiments with Rexx scripts stored in the z/OS 
>Unix file system encoded in ASCII and they will execute without a problem so 
>long as the starting script file is properly ...

>

FSVO "properly".  What does "say c2x( 'abcd' )" show?  Is it the same on

a real ASCII system?



--

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader 
of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any 
attachments from your system.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:59:21 +, Farley, Peter wrote:
>
>I have recently done some experiments with Rexx scripts stored in the z/OS 
>Unix file system encoded in ASCII and they will execute without a problem so 
>long as the starting script file is properly ...
>
FSVO "properly".  What does "say c2x( 'abcd' )" show?  Is it the same on
a real ASCII system?

-- 
gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Jeremy Nicoll]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024, at 04:58, Steve Thompson wrote:

> And so, with Windows I/O is different (still talking REXX), same 
> problem with Linux. I/O is not handled the same for simple reads 
> and writes from my perspective.

There's an EXECIO in ooREXX now, provided by the

  address hostemu

extension; the docs suggest it works in Windows & Unix/linux.  The
parameter after diskr/diskw is the whole taget filename, most likely
enclosed in quotes.

I've not tried it yet.

-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:59:21 +, Farley, Peter wrote:

>Practically speaking however, starting a Rexx script under one of the z/OS 
>Unix shell programs is pretty much the only way to get it done.  Although if 
>you use the BPXWUNIX() function from a TSO Rexx  script to start another Rexx 
>script stored in the z/OS Unix file system it might work.  I will have to try 
>that path out.
>

BPXWUNIX() runs a shell.


>I have recently done some experiments with Rexx scripts stored in the z/OS 
>Unix file system encoded in ASCII and they will execute without a problem so 
>long as the starting script file is properly tagged as ISO8859-1 text.  
>Untagged Rexx script files started from any z/OS Unix shell do have to be 
>encoded in EBCDIC though.
>
EBCDIC -- Who needs it!  suppose it's improperly tagged as ISO8859-1
text but writes UTF-8 strings to stdout?  Will they display nicely via ssh to
a UTF-8 desktop?

-- 
gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:40:33 -0500, Jon Perryman wrote:
>
>I've never tried it but a shell should not be required to automatically 
>integrate REXX & UNIX as long as you start REXX using z/OS Unix facilities in 
>a Unix address space. Technically, shells are not required by Unix but I doubt 
>that it has been tested much for obscure requirements.
> 
From the ISPF command line I've run a '~'-aware exec that does
ADDRESS SYSCALL chdir  which changes the default
directory for 3.17, etc.

I suspect that spawn( <, ... ); would work likewise.
Available and default command environments TBD.

-- 
gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Farley, Peter]

Practically speaking however, starting a Rexx script under one of the z/OS Unix 
shell programs is pretty much the only way to get it done.  Although if you use 
the BPXWUNIX() function from a TSO Rexx  script to start another Rexx script 
stored in the z/OS Unix file system it might work.  I will have to try that 
path out.

I have recently done some experiments with Rexx scripts stored in the z/OS Unix 
file system encoded in ASCII and they will execute without a problem so long as 
the starting script file is properly tagged as ISO8859-1 text.  Untagged Rexx 
script files started from any z/OS Unix shell do have to be encoded in EBCDIC 
though.

Peter

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of Jon 
Perryman
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 12:41 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness


On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:54:15 +, Seymour J Metz 
mailto:sme...@gmu.edu>> wrote:



>>Wait, what?  Are you saying TSO-REXXhaas LINEIN, CHAROUT and so on?



>Only in a EUnix environment. I don't know if syscalls is enough or if you 
>actually have t be running under the shell.



Syscalls does not setup a full z/OS Unix environment and in environments like 
TSO would only cause dubbing.



I've never tried it but a shell should not be required to automatically 
integrate REXX & UNIX as long as you start REXX using z/OS Unix facilities in a 
Unix address space. Technically, shells are not required by Unix but I doubt 
that it has been tested much for obscure requirements.

--



This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader 
of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any 
attachments from your system.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Jon Perryman]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:54:15 +, Seymour J Metz  wrote:

>>Wait, what?  Are you saying TSO-REXXhaas LINEIN, CHAROUT and so on?

>Only in a EUnix environment. I don't know if syscalls is enough or if you 
>actually have t be running under the shell.

Syscalls does not setup a full z/OS Unix environment and in environments like 
TSO would only cause dubbing.

I've never tried it but a shell should not be required to automatically 
integrate REXX & UNIX as long as you start REXX using z/OS Unix facilities in a 
Unix address space. Technically, shells are not required by Unix but I doubt 
that it has been tested much for obscure requirements.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Bob Bridges]

Oh, Unix.  Sorry, you did say "OMVS", I just didn't pay attention.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* The sad thing for us rationalists is that the vast majority of the human 
race would rather be told that "two and two is five and make no mistake about 
it" than "I think it is possible that two and two may be four.  -from The Stars 
in Their Courses by Isaac Asimov */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 15:02

Not exactly: 

--- On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:54:33 -0400, Bob Bridges wrote:
>Wait, what?  Are you saying TSO-REXX has LINEIN, CHAROUT and so on?

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Seymour J Metz]

Only in a EUnix environment. I don't know if syscalls is enough or if you 
actually have t be running under the shell.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of Bob 
Bridges <0587168ababf-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 2:54 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

Wait, what?  Are you saying TSO-REXX has LINEIN, CHAROUT and so on?

...Although I do think EXECIO is nicely flexible.  Still, I find myself looking 
up the syntax occasionally when doing something unusual.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* [Hitler] has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly 
all western thought since the last war, certainly all ‘progressive’ thought, 
has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and 
avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for 
patriotism and the military virtuesHitler, because in his own joyless mind 
he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings ~don’t~ want 
only comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in 
general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and 
self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they 
may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder 
than any hedonistic conception of life.  -George Orwell, reviewing _Mein Kampf_ 
in 1940. */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 10:40

Given that REXX in an OMVS environment supports ANSI stream I/O, why use EXECIO?

--- On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:58:18 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote:
>I concur about REXX EXECIO I/O is not exactly intuitive.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Steve Thompson]

I am looking at going OOREXX or NETREXX to make interfacing 
easier. I'm still researching how to proceed in the best way.


I have Regina Rexx on both W11 and Suse LEAP 15.x I've been 
struggling with I/O because I'm too used to DSN type file systems 
as opposed to char streams.


So I have to re-think an application when trying to implement it 
off mainframe. Most of what I do is based on/in record I/O. And 
having used COBOL (FJ) on Windows, it makes the data appear as 
record oriented from where I sit.


I'm assuming they went to a common forum. I haven't looked it up 
for while.


Steve Thompson

On 4/21/2024 1:11 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:58:18 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote:


I concur about REXX EXECIO I/O is not exactly intuitive.

REXX, first implemented in CMS used the CMS I/O utilities
Over in TSO they created EXECIO which does not operate in the
same way as does the CMS EXECIO. And it causes me headaches when
I work on CMS for a year or two and then come back to TSO to have
it NOT be have as it did in CMS. Especially the STEM variable and
trying to write a record.


Note the fundamental difference in file specs:
CMS:  FN FT FM
Z/OS: DDNAME
... but I have written portable EXECs -- on z/OS
my  FileSpec variable is one word; on CMS three.

And, irritatingly, the syntax of ADDRESS MVS EXECIO
differs depending on whether the EXEC is started from
a UNIX or non-UNIX address space.

The lack of (VAR string is probably impelled by TSO
RECFM=F, which would have a trailing blank entanglement.


And so after working in TSO for a year or so to go back to CMS --
I need to learn and make use of PIPEs which is not supported over
on TSO Most shops do not see the need to pay for TSO Pipes.
Sigh.


Is TSO Pipes even marketed except, an obsolete version
bundled with BatchPipes?


And so, with Windows I/O is different (still talking REXX), same
problem with Linux. I/O is not handled the same for simple reads
and writes from my perspective.


Files on desktop systems are largely character streams; on
mainframes, record oriented.  Beyond that, standard Rexx
stream I/O came late to CMS because developers economized
by using the available EXECIO.


Never-the-Less, I really appreciate REXX over EXEC, EXEC2 and CLIST.


Which Rexx do you use on desktop systems?

BTW, is the Regina mailing list active?



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:54:33 -0400, Bob Bridges wrote:

>Wait, what?  Are you saying TSO-REXX has LINEIN, CHAROUT and so on?
>
Not exactly: 

>...Although I do think EXECIO is nicely flexible.  Still, I find myself 
>looking up the syntax occasionally when doing something unusual.
>
>---
>-Original Message-
>From: Seymour J Metz
>Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 10:40
>
>Given that REXX in an OMVS environment supports ANSI stream I/O, why use 
>EXECIO?

-- 
gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Bob Bridges]

Wait, what?  Are you saying TSO-REXX has LINEIN, CHAROUT and so on?

...Although I do think EXECIO is nicely flexible.  Still, I find myself looking 
up the syntax occasionally when doing something unusual.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* [Hitler] has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly 
all western thought since the last war, certainly all ‘progressive’ thought, 
has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and 
avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for 
patriotism and the military virtuesHitler, because in his own joyless mind 
he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings ~don’t~ want 
only comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in 
general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and 
self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they 
may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder 
than any hedonistic conception of life.  -George Orwell, reviewing _Mein Kampf_ 
in 1940. */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 10:40

Given that REXX in an OMVS environment supports ANSI stream I/O, why use EXECIO?

--- On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:58:18 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote:
>I concur about REXX EXECIO I/O is not exactly intuitive.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Bob Bridges]

Long before I started using ooRexx, before I even knew it existed in fact, I 
talked my boss at one company into letting me install a copy of Regina on my 
company workstation in order to save him some work.

It turned out to be an interesting project.  Apparently until then someone 
would occasionally grab a random meg or two of firewall logs and read them into 
Excel.  Then someone else would spend time sorting lines, deleting most of them 
but keeping all the ones that reported a rejected attempt at sending a packet.

The thing is, if a workstation sends ten thousand packets to a single IP 
address, or to several, it's probably legitimate work.  If many workstations 
send packets to one IP address, likewise work.  But if one IP address sends one 
packet to each of thousands of other addresses, it's very likely a virus 
looking for other machines to infect.  So someone would take all those firewall 
records, try to parse dates and IP addresses, and come up with suspicious 
behavior.

I heard my boss talking on the phone about this process - I think he said it 
normally took someone a couple hours - and after he hung up I approached him 
about a better way.  So I took a day or two writing a Regina program which 
could parse out all those records and produce a CSV of the suspicious actors in 
a few seconds.

After that I was the company virus hunter.  I maintained a database, which 
wasn't too bad, but I also had to run around to various locations to eliminate 
the problem malware, which was an unwelcome chore.  Still, I enjoyed the hunt.  
And Rexx is really, really good at that sort of text interpretation.

(Programming is so cool!)

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* Law #36 of combat operations:  Radar tends to fail at night and in bad 
weather, and especially during both. */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 01:11

Which Rexx do you use on desktop systems?

BTW, is the Regina mailing list active?

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:40:26 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:

>Given that REXX in an OMVS environment supports ANSI stream I/O, why use 
>EXECIO?
>
OMVS stream I/O doesn't support CKD /PO/PS data sets.

What about DSFS?

Does the DSFS User's Guide mention any restrictions with Rexx stream I/O?

-- 
gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Seymour J Metz]

Many platforms support ooRexx and Regina, whiinclude ANSI stream I/O. EXECIO is 
nice when portability is an issue, but otherwise I use stream.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Steve Thompson 
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2024 11:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

I concur about REXX EXECIO I/O is not exactly intuitive.

REXX, first implemented in CMS used the CMS I/O utilities
Over in TSO they created EXECIO which does not operate in the
same way as does the CMS EXECIO. And it causes me headaches when
I work on CMS for a year or two and then come back to TSO to have
it NOT be have as it did in CMS. Especially the STEM variable and
trying to write a record.

And so after working in TSO for a year or so to go back to CMS --
I need to learn and make use of PIPEs which is not supported over
on TSO Most shops do not see the need to pay for TSO Pipes.
Sigh.

And so, with Windows I/O is different (still talking REXX), same
problem with Linux. I/O is not handled the same for simple reads
and writes from my perspective.

Never-the-Less, I really appreciate REXX over EXEC, EXEC2 and CLIST.

Steve Thompson


On 4/19/2024 9:28 PM, Andrew Rowley wrote:
> On 20/04/2024 1:42 am, Jay Maynard wrote:
>> Agreed Java is simply far too complex a language and ecosystem
>> to hold in
>> the mind. Python is as ubiquitous and much easier to deal with.
>
> Really? What do you NEED to learn for Java that you don't need
> to learn for other languages? public static void main(String[]
> args)?
>
> Loops, if statements, data types, string processing are things
> you need to learn for all languages. I/O is useful (Rexx EXECIO
> isn't exactly intuitive).
>
>


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Seymour J Metz]

Given that REXX in an OMVS environment supports ANSI stream I/O, why use EXECIO?

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Paul Gilmartin <042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 1:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:58:18 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote:

>I concur about REXX EXECIO I/O is not exactly intuitive.
>
>REXX, first implemented in CMS used the CMS I/O utilities
>Over in TSO they created EXECIO which does not operate in the
>same way as does the CMS EXECIO. And it causes me headaches when
>I work on CMS for a year or two and then come back to TSO to have
>it NOT be have as it did in CMS. Especially the STEM variable and
>trying to write a record.
>
Note the fundamental difference in file specs:
CMS:  FN FT FM
Z/OS: DDNAME
... but I have written portable EXECs -- on z/OS
my  FileSpec variable is one word; on CMS three.

And, irritatingly, the syntax of ADDRESS MVS EXECIO
differs depending on whether the EXEC is started from
a UNIX or non-UNIX address space.

The lack of (VAR string is probably impelled by TSO
RECFM=F, which would have a trailing blank entanglement.

>And so after working in TSO for a year or so to go back to CMS --
>I need to learn and make use of PIPEs which is not supported over
>on TSO Most shops do not see the need to pay for TSO Pipes.
>Sigh.
>
Is TSO Pipes even marketed except, an obsolete version
bundled with BatchPipes?

>And so, with Windows I/O is different (still talking REXX), same
>problem with Linux. I/O is not handled the same for simple reads
>and writes from my perspective.
>
Files on desktop systems are largely character streams; on
mainframes, record oriented.  Beyond that, standard Rexx
stream I/O came late to CMS because developers economized
by using the available EXECIO.

>Never-the-Less, I really appreciate REXX over EXEC, EXEC2 and CLIST.
>
Which Rexx do you use on desktop systems?

BTW, is the Regina mailing list active?

--
gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:58:18 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote:

>I concur about REXX EXECIO I/O is not exactly intuitive.
>
>REXX, first implemented in CMS used the CMS I/O utilities
>Over in TSO they created EXECIO which does not operate in the
>same way as does the CMS EXECIO. And it causes me headaches when
>I work on CMS for a year or two and then come back to TSO to have
>it NOT be have as it did in CMS. Especially the STEM variable and
>trying to write a record.
>
Note the fundamental difference in file specs:
CMS:  FN FT FM
Z/OS: DDNAME
... but I have written portable EXECs -- on z/OS
my  FileSpec variable is one word; on CMS three.

And, irritatingly, the syntax of ADDRESS MVS EXECIO
differs depending on whether the EXEC is started from
a UNIX or non-UNIX address space.

The lack of (VAR string is probably impelled by TSO
RECFM=F, which would have a trailing blank entanglement.

>And so after working in TSO for a year or so to go back to CMS --
>I need to learn and make use of PIPEs which is not supported over
>on TSO Most shops do not see the need to pay for TSO Pipes.
>Sigh.
>
Is TSO Pipes even marketed except, an obsolete version
bundled with BatchPipes?

>And so, with Windows I/O is different (still talking REXX), same
>problem with Linux. I/O is not handled the same for simple reads
>and writes from my perspective.
>
Files on desktop systems are largely character streams; on
mainframes, record oriented.  Beyond that, standard Rexx
stream I/O came late to CMS because developers economized
by using the available EXECIO.

>Never-the-Less, I really appreciate REXX over EXEC, EXEC2 and CLIST.
>
Which Rexx do you use on desktop systems?

BTW, is the Regina mailing list active?

-- 
gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX vs other languages -- EXECIO intuitiveness

[Steve Thompson]

I concur about REXX EXECIO I/O is not exactly intuitive.

REXX, first implemented in CMS used the CMS I/O utilities 
Over in TSO they created EXECIO which does not operate in the 
same way as does the CMS EXECIO. And it causes me headaches when 
I work on CMS for a year or two and then come back to TSO to have 
it NOT be have as it did in CMS. Especially the STEM variable and 
trying to write a record.


And so after working in TSO for a year or so to go back to CMS -- 
I need to learn and make use of PIPEs which is not supported over 
on TSO Most shops do not see the need to pay for TSO Pipes. 
Sigh.


And so, with Windows I/O is different (still talking REXX), same 
problem with Linux. I/O is not handled the same for simple reads 
and writes from my perspective.


Never-the-Less, I really appreciate REXX over EXEC, EXEC2 and CLIST.

Steve Thompson


On 4/19/2024 9:28 PM, Andrew Rowley wrote:

On 20/04/2024 1:42 am, Jay Maynard wrote:
Agreed Java is simply far too complex a language and ecosystem 
to hold in

the mind. Python is as ubiquitous and much easier to deal with.


Really? What do you NEED to learn for Java that you don't need 
to learn for other languages? public static void main(String[] 
args)?


Loops, if statements, data types, string processing are things 
you need to learn for all languages. I/O is useful (Rexx EXECIO 
isn't exactly intuitive).






--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN