> I did not know the DTL compiler was written in Rexx. I did never like it
I liked DTL, and used it when appropriate, although I did a lot by hand. You have to carve the bird at its joints. > I would applaud a Unicode-only strategy for new software ++ > Also, PDS and ZFS could have been integrated way earlier but the problem > seems to be vision. Way back when, after IBM introduced VSAM and VTAM, I thought that an ACB-based strategy was a no-brainer. Despite the precednt of a Reverse Compatibility Interface in OS/VS1, IBM clearly did not see it that way. > About those LLVM/Clang ports: Licensing is complicated, and a clear answer requires specifying the specific license, but in general you have to make the source code available for those parts covered by the open source license. There are massive differences between the terms of, e.g., GPL and bsd. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of René Jansen [rene.vincent.jan...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 4:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Ad TCP/Socket programs in REXX (Re: Mainframe REXX (Re: Badmouthing Rexx and ooRexx - again (Re: zOSMF and zOWE for non-mainframers > On 8 Mar 2023, at 04:39, David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/3/23 16:59, René Jansen wrote: >> On 7 Mar 2023, at 08:45, David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com >> <mailto:dcrayf...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> The industry has spoken! Python is the most popular programming language in >>> the world so haters will have to just suck that up. >> That is a very funny statement. Nobody hates Python - the hype will blow >> over like Perl, Visual Basic, Ruby, COBOL, etc. O wait, there is still tons >> of COBOL around, like there will be tons of Rexx around for ages. > > Agreed. And there is lots of REXX on the mainframe. > > > > There's bugs in that code ;) That’s ChatGPT, it is a bit like a bullshitter consultant. > > >> >> I rest my case. Still not sure why JCL needs to be replaced but hey. > > 100% agree. Can't say I'm a big fan of JCL but it does the job. > So the question is why the self hate (in the sense of wilful deprecation of own history and intellectual/cultural heritage) with IBM has reached the levels that it attacks JCL and the Rexx scripts that not even need to replace JCL. It’s hip to be square, and lots of people want to learn ‘mainframe’ - or have a course in ‘3270’ as they call it. > >> The curious case with Rexx is that it has been under attack from the >> beginning, like all good things within IBM, like VM and JES2. Later, in >> OS/2, it was relentlessly attacked by Microsoft and almost left out of it, >> only to be introduced in the IBM EE “Extended Edition”, possibly because it >> was better than BASIC of the day. > > Interesting. I know it seems like I'm always attacking REXX but I would > suggest that I'm criticizing, not attacking. I used to work on NetMaster back > in the 90s and danced a jig of joy when I could use REXX instead of NCL. I > ways also delighted when ISPF supported inline REXX panel exits so I could > avoid horrible panel logic. > You could have fooled me, but please keep criticising, it can only become a better language. I doubt that it will be the original supplier that will do the changes though. By the way, Marc Remes checked in a change yesterday (on the Linux and Windows scripts) to enable NetRexx to compile without setting a CLASSPATH. Although the user will need a CLASSPTH when running their first compiled (not interpreted) program, and when linking to the first JVM Library or other external method; but it is a start. > These days I spend most of my time on z/OS using a bash shell. I have written > REXX scripts that use the SDSF API to interact with the spool, console etc. I > also like REXX to write scripts that call batch programs redirecting the > output to stdout/stderr etc so I can spawn batch utilities from UNIX > processes such as Java web servers. For short scripts REXX is an excellent > language. However, I don't think it scales. One glance at the ISPF DTL > compiler which is 42KLOC confirms this. > I did not know the DTL compiler was written in Rexx. I did never like it as I always thought the joy of ISPF panels was that you could layout the screen just like it needed to look and we did not need tags for that. Nor did we need CUA. Rexx does fit its niche. The compiler enables larger programs, it has an include statement that the interpreter does not have, and it is better for ‘application’ type of programs, while the interpreter does better at scripting. It was never meant as a replacement for tasks that are better done in PL/I, but for EXEC2 and CLIST replacement. > I haven't got the spare cycles to port ooRexx. I managed to build it in the > naughties but it was full of bugs. That was and EBCDIC port. I don't do > EBCDIC ports anymore (nor does Rocket or IBM). A feasibile port of ooRexx > would use the new LLVM/clang compilers and use enhanced ASCII with file > tagging. That's probably not what the majority of REXXers on this forum would > want. They want ooRexx to be native EBCDIC and for the scripts to be in PDS > data sets. And integration to TSO/ISPF and all that stuff. I can assure you > that is a VERY heavy lift. > It is no problem for current Rexx to do what it always did, and also function in USS. ooRexx could use most of those interfaces. But at the moment it seems that the strategy is to be overrun by the rest of the world. I would applaud a Unicode-only strategy for new software that should work in USS and conventional MVS; DB2 did very good work. USS was very late in making it at least workable, and there is too much ISO8859 in there still. Also, PDS and ZFS could have been integrated way earlier but the problem seems to be vision. As it is, I would rather see some respect for the things that work well and the people working with those tools. About those LLVM/Clang ports: I thought I read somewhere that you could only use those if you have a license for the older XLC compilers? Is that true? Would that even be legal given that those are open source? Reminds me of Curaçao where you could buy any beer if you also paid the Amstel brewery for the beer you did not buy. That has rightfully ended some years ago. best regards, René. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
