David, Thank you for mentioning these plugins, I am certainly going to have a look at them. There are some things in your mail I feel I have to correct.
> On 30 Nov 2021, at 22:55, David Crayford <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1/12/21 1:55 am, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> I just wish that they would acknowledge their abandoned child OREXX. > > IBM certainly haven't abandoned ooRexx. It's my understanding that Rick > McGuire works on it almost full time. The mailing lists still get quite a bit > of traffic and the Github repo shows recent commit activity. If you're > referring the fact that ooRexx hasn't been ported to z/OS then unfortunately > I don't see IBM committing resources to a language in decline. IBM has abandoned ORexx; the source code was given to the Rexx Language Association (of which I am, coincidentally, president) in 2005 already and we have to thank Rick that he still works on it in his own time, not IBM; as do lots of other people. It is very much alive, and at the moment better than it ever was. I’ll leave the remark “language in decline” without comment here, but allow me to say that if Rexx would fail at this moment, it would mark the end of civilisation as we know it. Rexx might wel be the most under-the-radar programming language there is, because it is very often used by systems staff (who were never allowed to program) to save applications of otherwise questionable architecture and implementation. Some people from IBM have told me that there was an Object Rexx implementation for z/OS (well, it might have been MVS/ESA or OS/390) that was finished and ready, and was scrapped through company polittics. In this sense, I agree with Seymour. As RexxLA, we did not receive this codebase; the same goes for the OS/2 Object Rexx codebase, which apparently was encumbered copyright-wise. Where the OREXX for MVS implementation has the status of a rumour, the mishandling of the Linux/Windows/AIX codebase (which would be open sourced, then not, then ‘free’ for Linux, cheap for Windows and expensive for the ’toolset’ - and some decade later open sourced again (for which we are grateful, of course, because even open sourcing is costly business) is public knowledge and can be found on the net. For this list, it would go too far to go into the ‘LotusScript’ and ‘DataBasic’ circumstances that probably influenced these decisions. Rexx in decline? Not really - who would be making Microsoft Visual whatever extensions for it if that were true. > It makes much more sense to port modern languages like Go, Python and > runtimes like Node.js. Docker is going to be important for z/OS and it's > written in Go so it's a no-brainer. We've been beta testing IBMs new clang > LLVM z/OS port which is exciting in the fact that LLVM can be used to build a > plethora of different languages. I particularly like Julia which has a > similar syntax to Lua but can be strongly typed and is compiled and > bench-tests show it runs at near C speeds. > I have some trouble to see Go and Python as more modern languages. A recent book tells me there are ‘100 Go Mistakes to Avoid’ - I think I am going to avoid only one. Python bases structure on indentation - I have trouble calling that modern, it actually reminds me of A and B margins and BAL sheets. And lots of ugly double underscores, if I may say. The LLVM for z/OS port actually is the best news there is here: it means we can base an Object Rexx version on that in a number of years from now. Also, the mainframe has gotten so fast that you probably can write an ooRexx in Classic Rexx for it without seeing slowdown. > As we are discussing z/OSMF and REXX I thought I would mention the Z Open > Editor plugin [1] for the VS Code editor. This includes the REXX LSP plugin > [2] written by Broadcom which supports auto-completion, syntax checking as > you type and symbol outlines. That is great news. Although I use ISPF, LEXX or XEDIT for serious work, and Emacs for all other platforms, I would love to see what they made, especially for an MS platform, the company that was very hostile to REXX in the OS/2 days - remember it initially was only in IBM’s OS/2 EE (Extended Edition). > > Of course, this new tooling is mainly targeted at the new generation of > mainframers and not at folks who don't like learning curves. But there is a > lot of value to be had if you don't mind trying new things. The Zowe explorer > VS Code extension has 46K downloads so it's quite popular. Although when you > compare that to 46M for Python [5] you can appreciate why IBM ported Python > to z/OS :) > I - personally - feel that people would be missing out when they are not learning ISPF and JCL (and REXX!) like we did. If I was starting out in this field, I’d rather learn something that is a nice niche instead of the standard fare that millions of young people must have in their repertoire. Which mostly lasts the lifetime of a JavaScript framework. Also, with all the ‘modern’ interfaces, I never saw someone use them without having a small 3270 window to that same box open - and asking me questions every time I passed their rooms in the hallway. I feel the same goes for Python on z/OS - admittedly not having looked at it. Does it have the same TSO, batch, console, SDSF etc interfaces as Rexx has? > [1] https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=IBM.zopeneditor > [2] > https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=broadcomMFD.lsp-for-rexx > [3] https://docs.zowe.org/stable/user-guide/install-overview > [4] > https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=Zowe.vscode-extension-for-zowe > [5] https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-python.python > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Best regards, René. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
