in 734949 20150124 113420 Gene Heskett <ghesk...@wdtv.com> wrote: >On Saturday 24 January 2015 03:09:51 Bob Martin did opine >And Gene did reply: >> 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. > >Can it run typical AREXX source? I don't see a single syllable on that >now 5 year old site indicating any such capability.
AREXX is based on Mike Cowlishaw's original mainframe Rexx so I doubt there was much difference. ooRexx is compatible with Rexx and is actively maintained by current & past IBMers. A new version is coming soon. > >Example: Something needs to be synchronized to occur in the first tick of >the next minute, and has nothing to do until then, so it queries the >system for the number of ticks remaining in this minute, then puts itself >to sleep for that long. > >Is this possible in ooRexx? Yes, you'll find all you need in the utility classes at http://www.oorexx.org/docs/rexxref/book1.htm -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
