Flexibilty

[BRADLEY]

From: Bradley K. Simonin

Hello Fellow NetRexxer's

Debating is a healthy thing; it is not a waste of time. I have enjoyed the
notes that have been sent to me personally and through the NetRexx mailing
list.

Some very important issues have been addressed and I am very thankful for
that.

We each see NetRexx through our own eyes and projects that we work on. Some of
us see it as a way of producing projects quicker and easier. Some of us see it
as a way of not learning something new because of time constraints, etc. And,
still others see NetRexx as a hybrid species -- taking the best of two elegant
languages and combining them into one to produce a new superior productive
species.

However Mike and IBM approach NetRexx is fine with me. But these issues must
be raised as Java and NetRexx mature. Certainly the NetCobol folks are going
to be debating and discussing the very same issues.

My perspective is: What computer languages out there (excluding 4GL's) has the
ability to program in one and produce another. I can not think of any. It is
the very nature that NetRexx can be used to produce another language that
causes the issues we have been talking about. We all have our views of NetRexx
& classic Rexx and none of us are going to completely agree on how NetRexx is
implemented compared to classic Rexx.

The ability to be flexible is one of Rexx's greatest strengths. It is because
of this flexibility that will attract native Java programmers to it. I for one
am a marketer at heart -- I want native Java programmers to be interested in
NetRexx; I want NetRexx to become popular and used. If there is anything we
can do to attract native Java programmers to NetRexx then lets do it.


Brad Simonin (a Rexx and Java Fan)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to
[hidden email]
with the following message in the body of the note
unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address>

[Nicholas J Gimbrone (Whatever Is Right-Do It)]

>   What computer languages out there (excluding 4GL's) has the
>ability to program in one and produce another. I can not think of any.
Actually, this is a common (well, at least "not uncommon" ;-)
technique.  If you think about it, isn't this what most compilers do
(we program in C and it generates a machine language for any of a
number of machines, that machine language is then interpreted by the
local micro code).  In the late 70s I worked on a FORTRAN compiler
(written in FORTRAN no less) that produced as output the program
expressed in another language which was then ran through that other
language's translator to produce the executable object deck...  in that
case it was for a special purpose piece of hardware, but the concept is
still the same (and it wasn't all that new then either ;-).
Personally, this is one of the things I like about NetRexx...
using well proven techniques to solve today's problems.  :-) -njg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to
[hidden email]
with the following message in the body of the note
unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address>

[mcbrides]

--- some text deleted ---

>Personally, this is one of the things I like about NetRexx...
>using well proven techniques to solve today's problems.  :-) -njg

Hmmpf... nice quote.

--

/-------------------------------------\
| Jerry McBride  ([hidden email]) |
\-------------------------------------/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to
[hidden email]
with the following message in the body of the note
unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address>