in 734904 20150123 225104 Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote: >On 01/21/2015 05:55 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote: >>> I find these kinds of discussions sort of silly. Once there is a critical >>> mass of installed base, no language EVER dies. >> >> Not sure about that. Back in the 1990s, I wrote most of my code in >> REXX, either command-line or using a GUI toolkit like VX-REXX. Where's >> REXX today? Well, let's see. It's still the native-ish language of >> OS/2. Where's OS/2 today? Left behind. REXX has no Unicode support (it >> does, however, support DBCS - useful, no?), no inbuilt networking >> support (there are third-party TCP/IP socket libraries for OS/2 REXX, >> but I don't know that other REXX implementations have socket services; >> and that's just basic BSD sockets, no higher-level protocol handling >> at all), etc, etc. Sure, it's not technically dead... but is anyone >> developing the language further? I don't think so. Is new REXX code >> being written? Not a lot. Yet when OS/2 was more popular, REXX >> definitely had its installed base. It was the one obvious scripting >> language for any OS/2 program. Languages can definitely die, or at >> least be so left behind that they may as well be dead. >> >> ChrisA >> > >Rexx is still well used on mainframes.
http://www.oorexx.org/ I use ooRexx every day, on Linux mostly, but also available on Windows. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
