May I repeat MY BET
Locked
12
12
 
|
My BET is, that my (OPEN Source) release of my Rey (Rexx to Java) Compiler
will go out public SOURCE (*OPEN SOURCE*) earlier than anything else. I'll pay ONE beer to any of the attendees at the *next REXXLA Language Symposium* when I'm loosing.... When I'm winning this bet, I do hope that REXXLA does pay my travel and living costs .... ;-) OK? Tom. Thomas Schneider IT-Consulting. www.Rexx2Nrx.com www.db-123.com Current Projects: Project 'reyc' (The Rey Compiler Project) on www.kenai.com Project 'PP' (the generalized Program Porting Machine) on www.kenai.com When interested, go ahead, and just *subscribe* as an *Observer* Thomas. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Tom. (ths@db-123.com)
|
|
|
I haven't received anything from this list since 4/2, and considering
how active it has been recently, that seems strange. Is there something wrong with my system, or has it just been quiet? Thanks. Bill Fenlason _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Is this list still active?
|
|
I've posted some notes -- last week and got some replies.
bobh On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Bill Fenlason <[hidden email]> wrote: I haven't received anything from this list since 4/2, and considering how active it has been recently, that seems strange. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by billfen
Hi Bill -
You are OK. The list just went quiet. I guess everyone is busy with other stuff or just waiting patiently ~( ;-) for open source NetRexx... -- Kermit Bill Fenlason wrote: > I haven't received anything from this list since 4/2, and considering > how active it has been recently, that seems strange. > > Is there something wrong with my system, or has it just been quiet? > > Thanks. > > Bill Fenlason > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > > Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Is this list still active?
|
|
In reply to this post by billfen
Hello Bill & all,
I, from my side, have moved my conversations to project 'reyc' at www.kenai.com, for my pending release of the Rey Compiler (+end of advertisement+ :-) ). When interested, please subscribe this list. I'll only use group ibm-netRexx for strictly ibm-netRexx related issues. Kind regards, Thomas Schneider (Tom.) ========================================================== Bill Fenlason schrieb: > I haven't received anything from this list since 4/2, and considering > how active it has been recently, that seems strange. > > Is there something wrong with my system, or has it just been quiet? > > Thanks. > > Bill Fenlason > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Tom. (ths@db-123.com)
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Kermit Kiser
The patience is highly appreciated and still necessary. But ... there
is no reason to not discuss all things NetRexx here. Now the trouble is that I never understand what you Americans mean with 4/2 - is this the 4th of February - (we have seen lots of mail since then) or is this the 2nd of April (I have 8 mails dated April 2nd or later on the list, but some straddle the date boundary so 4 of them are surely still 2nd of April in your timezone - I just got home from AST zone and although I am a fairly experienced time zone traveller, there still was some hilarious fallout caused by this). I propose we use Rexx time on this list. On a completely unrelated note: Robin Milner passed away last month. I was always in awe of what ML could do with type inference (although I must admit I only read about it and only made some 'hello world' typing excercises in it (but this is the typing as meant in Pierce, Benjamin (2002). Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-16209-1, and it was OCAML)) and I wonder how far we could push NetRexx to do the same; the beginnings clearly are there, and the beautiful thing, as I see it, is that the results of the effort would be completely compatible with the current implementation, because we would only omit things - if we specify type, it would have to be used and checked. (I have some vision on how to tackle the nasty Java generics syntax with this). I would like to know your thoughts on this, specially from Mike (if you read this)(which you -no doubt- do). The other side of the spectrum would be the 'go'-route (googles new language), which means that in order to have swift compiling, we over-specify everything, including module dependencies, so there is nothing much to infer or lookup at compile time. My long term goal would be a compiler with the brains of ML infused NetRexx and the speed of 'go'. René. On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Kermit Kiser <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Bill - > > You are OK. The list just went quiet. I guess everyone is busy with other > stuff or just waiting patiently ~( ;-) for open source NetRexx... > > -- Kermit > > > Bill Fenlason wrote: >> >> I haven't received anything from this list since 4/2, and considering how >> active it has been recently, that seems strange. >> >> Is there something wrong with my system, or has it just been quiet? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Bill Fenlason >> _______________________________________________ >> Ibm-netrexx mailing list >> [hidden email] >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
On 4/13/2010 11:22 AM, René Jansen wrote:
> Now the trouble is that I never understand what you Americans mean > with 4/2 - is this the 4th of February - (we have seen lots of mail > since then) or is this the 2nd of April My own solution to this confusion is this: 02 IV 2010, which is unambiguous regardless of ordering. [You do need to know that XII is the largest value in that field.] _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
On 4/13/10 16:53 Tom Maynard said:
> On 4/13/2010 11:22 AM, René Jansen wrote: >> Now the trouble is that I never understand what you Americans mean >> with 4/2 - is this the 4th of February - (we have seen lots of mail >> since then) or is this the 2nd of April >> >> I propose we use Rexx time on this list. I thought Rexx was timeless... ;-) > My own solution to this confusion is this: 02 IV 2010, which is > unambiguous regardless of ordering. [You do need to know that XII is > the largest value in that field.] :-)) I have a curmudgeonly friend who owns a private airstrip. One day a new young State Aviation Inspector came by and cited him because the runway numbers were so old they were barely readable. This was on an airstrip that was used only by friends in nice weather, so it was hardly a problem; just a way the new kid could exert a little bureaucratic muscle. Rucker didn't say anything, went out the next day and re-painted the numbers as directed. A month later the kid came back and discovered that the runway numbers were in Roman numerals. As it turns out, there is nothing in the state regulations that says they have to be Arabic. :-) Federal regs do, but that was beyond the kid's authority. I use base-31 YMD: 2 Apr 2010 = A42, 31 May 2010 = A5V. Sortable and compact, if a little challenging to do in your head. :-) And easily extendable to date+time down to the second in six digits with base-60. I'm thinking of submitting an RFC for adding a new BiF... ;-) -Chip- _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
RE: Is this list still active?
|
|
In reply to this post by Tom Maynard
> On 4/13/2010 11:22 AM, René Jansen wrote: > > Now the trouble is that I never understand what you Americans mean > > with 4/2 - is this the 4th of February - (we have seen lots of mail > > since then) or is this the 2nd of April > My own solution to this confusion is this: 02 IV 2010, which > is unambiguous regardless of ordering. [You do need to know > that XII is the largest value in that field.] Or even the ISO standard: 2010-04-02 (separators may vary). _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
Or even the ISO standard: 2010-04-02 (separators may vary). ISO 8601 even... I strongly agree. Alan. -- Needs more cow-bell! _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Alan
-- Needs more cowbell. |
Re: NetRexx Language changes (was "Is this list still active?")
|
|
In reply to this post by rvjansen
René ;
I am not sure what you mean about extending NetRexx type inference. Could you give any examples? Would it interfere with automatic type conversions? One of the problems I have in my current projects is that I have to do a lot of explicit conversions because the CharSequence type frequently used in Android calls is not recognized by NetRexx and so I have to force things as in this example: (TextView findViewById(R.id.date_display)).setText(Rexx(datepick.getYear"/"datepick.getMonth+1"/"datepick.getDayOfMonth).toString) where the setText method of a TextView requires a CharSequence rather than a String which NetRexx would recognize and automatically convert for. I was kinda hoping that we could update open source NetRexx to handle those conversions automatically. What do you think? On the compiler speed issue I have mixed feelings. The largest module in my current project is about 2000 lines of NetRexx (not many are comments). A project build takes from 10 to 20 seconds depending on various factors like what else is running on the system (3 and 1/2 year old dual core 2 GHz Turion). Granted that only part of that time is from the NetRexx compiles, I would love to not have to wait so long before I can download the completed build to a phone and test some trivial change (which I have to do frequently). Because of that wait and other concerns I am contemplating upgrading to a current top line quad core i7 system to improve compile times. Better compiler efficiency would be great but not if it increases programming complexity. Does that make sense? -- Kermit René Jansen wrote: > On a completely unrelated note: Robin Milner passed away last month. I > was always in awe of what ML could do with type inference (although I > must admit I only read about it and only made some 'hello world' > typing excercises in it (but this is the typing as meant in Pierce, > Benjamin (2002). Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press. ISBN > 0-262-16209-1, and it was OCAML)) and I wonder how far we could push > NetRexx to do the same; the beginnings clearly are there, and the > beautiful thing, as I see it, is that the results of the effort would > be completely compatible with the current implementation, because we > would only omit things - if we specify type, it would have to be used > and checked. (I have some vision on how to tackle the nasty Java > generics syntax with this). I would like to know your thoughts on > this, specially from Mike (if you read this)(which you -no doubt- do). > > The other side of the spectrum would be the 'go'-route (googles new > language), which means that in order to have swift compiling, we > over-specify everything, including module dependencies, so there is > nothing much to infer or lookup at compile time. My long term goal > would be a compiler with the brains of ML infused NetRexx and the > speed of 'go'. > > René. > Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
{I don't have TRL in front of me right now. But,} Let's not forget
Mike's original intent for REXX; it was what brought us together. Priority list: 1) Readability. 2) Writeability. 3) [and last] Compilability. As I recall, in his Forward, he talked of writing the documentation first with NO thought to the compiling effort at that time. Yes, a fast compile is important, but, especially for REXX, nowhere near the first two. Google's priorities for GO are for write once, use several zillion times, and never have to read it. (Well, close to that.) Jeff On 4/13/2010 2:19 PM, Kermit Kiser wrote: > René ; > > I am not sure what you mean about extending NetRexx type inference. > Could you give any examples? Would it interfere with automatic type > conversions? One of the problems I have in my current projects is that > I have to do a lot of explicit conversions because the CharSequence > type frequently used in Android calls is not recognized by NetRexx and > so I have to force things as in this example: > > (TextView > findViewById(R.id.date_display)).setText(Rexx(datepick.getYear"/"datepick.getMonth+1"/"datepick.getDayOfMonth).toString) > > > where the setText method of a TextView requires a CharSequence rather > than a String which NetRexx would recognize and automatically convert > for. > > I was kinda hoping that we could update open source NetRexx to handle > those conversions automatically. What do you think? > > On the compiler speed issue I have mixed feelings. The largest module > in my current project is about 2000 lines of NetRexx (not many are > comments). A project build takes from 10 to 20 seconds depending on > various factors like what else is running on the system (3 and 1/2 > year old dual core 2 GHz Turion). Granted that only part of that time > is from the NetRexx compiles, I would love to not have to wait so long > before I can download the completed build to a phone and test some > trivial change (which I have to do frequently). Because of that wait > and other concerns I am contemplating upgrading to a current top line > quad core i7 system to improve compile times. Better compiler > efficiency would be great but not if it increases programming > complexity. Does that make sense? > > -- Kermit > > > René Jansen wrote: >> >> The other side of the spectrum would be the 'go'-route (googles new >> language), which means that in order to have swift compiling, we >> over-specify everything, including module dependencies, so there is >> nothing much to infer or lookup at compile time. My long term goal >> would be a compiler with the brains of ML infused NetRexx and the >> speed of 'go'. >> >> René. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Is this list still active?
|
|
In reply to this post by rvjansen
In the 'western world' the only sensible format is
dd MMM CCYY Where dd starts with 01 and goes to 28 29 30 or 31 bobh
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
Sorry about the confusion of "4/2".
I use Thunderbird to read my mail, and the last message I had received was by Chip Davis, sent on: "4/2/2010 10:26 PM". I just (carelessly) truncated instead of translating into something less ambiguous. Bill _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Revising the calendar again ....
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert L Hamilton
I do have a totally other solution to this whole date-problem:
we should re-invent a 13th month again, following the December (which is by the way the ten'th month, as it's Latin Name says ...). And also one new day, I call it the BLITZTAG in German. The advantage would be, that each month again has 28 days (nearly the time the moon takes to turn around the earth). The (my)proposition is, that everybody can select what he/she wants to do in this new, additional month. And it would *and must* be paid of course, by the employer ... Just a -- not directly NetRexx related -- contribution to the current date issue on this discussion topic. Tom ;-) =============================================================================== Robert Hamilton schrieb: > In the 'western world' the only sensible format is > > dd MMM CCYY > > Where dd starts with 01 and goes to 28 29 30 or 31 > > > bobh > > > Now the trouble is that I never understand what you Americans mean > with 4/2 - is this the 4th of February - (we have seen lots of mail > since then) or is this the 2nd of April (I have 8 mails dated April > 2nd or later on the list, but some straddle the date boundary so 4 of > them are surely still 2nd of April in your timezone - I just got home > from AST zone and although I am a fairly experienced time zone > traveller, there still was some hilarious fallout caused by this). > > I propose we use Rexx time on this list. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Tom. (ths@db-123.com)
|
Re: Is this list still active?
|
|
In reply to this post by Aviatrexx
Hello Chip,
you always are *enlarging* my knowledge of english words, and other facts I didn't yet know as well ;-) Great contribution! Tom. (Thomas Schneider). ============================================================================ Chip Davis schrieb: > On 4/13/10 16:53 Tom Maynard said: >> On 4/13/2010 11:22 AM, René Jansen wrote: >>> Now the trouble is that I never understand what you Americans mean >>> with 4/2 - is this the 4th of February - (we have seen lots of mail >>> since then) or is this the 2nd of April > >> > >> I propose we use Rexx time on this list. > > I thought Rexx was timeless... ;-) > >> My own solution to this confusion is this: 02 IV 2010, which is >> unambiguous regardless of ordering. [You do need to know that XII is >> the largest value in that field.] > > :-)) > > I have a curmudgeonly friend who owns a private airstrip. One day a > new young State Aviation Inspector came by and cited him because the > runway numbers were so old they were barely readable. This was on an > airstrip that was used only by friends in nice weather, so it was > hardly a problem; just a way the new kid could exert a little > bureaucratic muscle. > > Rucker didn't say anything, went out the next day and re-painted the > numbers as directed. A month later the kid came back and discovered > that the runway numbers were in Roman numerals. As it turns out, > there is nothing in the state regulations that says they have to be > Arabic. :-) Federal regs do, but that was beyond the kid's authority. > > I use base-31 YMD: 2 Apr 2010 = A42, 31 May 2010 = A5V. Sortable and > compact, if a little challenging to do in your head. :-) > > And easily extendable to date+time down to the second in six digits > with base-60. I'm thinking of submitting an RFC for adding a new > BiF... ;-) > > -Chip- > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Tom. (ths@db-123.com)
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Tom Maynard
Because one of my hobbies is Astronomy, I prefer JD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day
> which is unambiguous, and can express a date with as much precision as required. It is, like UTC, time zone free. I'm writing this at: JD2455302.063287 Let's face it, the ambiguity was introduced because we are all lazy and don't want to spend the time writing out the entire unambiguous date. You can say that 04 APR 2010 is unambiguous, but it is also anglo centric. Would you know what date is meant if someone wrote 04 ENE 2010 or 04 Aoû 2010? Perhaps, but I would have to ask for clarification. Bruce On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Tom Maynard wrote: > On 4/13/2010 11:22 AM, René Jansen wrote: >> Now the trouble is that I never understand what you Americans mean >> with 4/2 - is this the 4th of February - (we have seen lots of mail >> since then) or is this the 2nd of April > My own solution to this confusion is this: 02 IV 2010, which is > unambiguous regardless of ordering. [You do need to know that XII > is the largest value in that field.] > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: NetRexx Language changes (was "Is this list still active?")
|
|
In reply to this post by Kermit Kiser
Kermit,
El 13/04/2010 20:19, Kermit Kiser escribió:
been having a closer look at this code snippet (will focus on the red section). First, I dont really understand why are you explicitly instantiating a Rexx object. My be I'm being dumb but as I see it there're are two posibilities here: - options binary is in effect: the abbuted String objects become an String which needs no further conversion - options nobinary in effect: abbuted Strings become a Rexx object whithout further need for explicit instantiation what I'm I missing?
I agree NetRexx type conversion has a major shortcoming in its present form. Namely, type lookups take into account any ancestor classes but not implemented interfaces. In the case at hand, it would be reasonable to expect Rexx type objects be automatically converted to String whether a String object or 'an object implementing any of String implemented interfaces' is expected. Another 'type lookup' issue related to interfaces I was once bitten by is as follows: - have two overloaded methods someMethod(someArg=Object) and someMethod(someArg=SomeInerface) - have an object someObject of class SomeClass implements SomeInterface - have a call to someMethod(someObject) NetRexxC is unable to resolve which method it is to call so you get an error. Again seems that implemented interfaces are not taken into account when resolving types (well, they're but with a same priority than inheritance...) sou you're forced to explicitly cast as in someMethod(SomeInterface someObject) I would say that NetRexx would benefit from mirroring java's behaviour more closely here On the compiler speed issue I have mixed feelings. The largest module in my current project is about 2000 lines of NetRexx (not many are comments). A project build takes from 10 to 20 seconds depending on various factors like what else is running on the system (3 and 1/2 year old dual core 2 GHz Turion). Granted that only part of that time is from the NetRexx compiles, I would love to not have to wait so long before I can download the completed build to a phone and test some trivial change (which I have to do frequently). Because of that wait and other concerns I am contemplating upgrading to a current top line quad core i7 system to improve compile times. Better compiler efficiency would be great but not if it increases programming complexity. Does that make sense? I'll vote for a faster compiler any moment as long as the goal does not imply modifying the language. REXX family languages always intended to be languages making life easy for programmers, not for language implementors. Going 'the go route' could in fact yield a very fast compiler. One that I probably won't be using if I'm being forced to do inside my head a host of the tasks the compiler should be doing :-) I would propose, lets concentrate on having the best language ever. Then we try to make the best/fastest possible compiler for it. Sacrificing language terseness in exchange for compiler efficiency sounds weird to me in the REXX world. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Skelly
Yeah.. well.. Yours is probably not ambiguous but I don't think many people understands what date you mean. Certainly not me!
:-) Saludos / Best regards, David Requena -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Skelly <[hidden email]> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:46:31 To: IBM Netrexx<[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Is this list still active? Because one of my hobbies is Astronomy, I prefer JD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day > which is unambiguous, and can express a date with as much precision as required. It is, like UTC, time zone free. I'm writing this at: JD2455302.063287 Let's face it, the ambiguity was introduced because we are all lazy and don't want to spend the time writing out the entire unambiguous date. You can say that 04 APR 2010 is unambiguous, but it is also anglo centric. Would you know what date is meant if someone wrote 04 ENE 2010 or 04 Aoû 2010? Perhaps, but I would have to ask for clarification. Bruce On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Tom Maynard wrote: > On 4/13/2010 11:22 AM, René Jansen wrote: >> Now the trouble is that I never understand what you Americans mean >> with 4/2 - is this the 4th of February - (we have seen lots of mail >> since then) or is this the 2nd of April > My own solution to this confusion is this: 02 IV 2010, which is > unambiguous regardless of ordering. [You do need to know that XII > is the largest value in that field.] > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
On 15 April 2010 10:03, David Requena <[hidden email]> wrote: -- Yeah.. well.. Yours is probably not ambiguous but I don't think many people understands what date you mean. Certainly not me! Agreed. I stand by ISO 8601; it has the advantage of being computer friendly, easy to parse and is an ISO standard. Alan. Needs more cow-bell! _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Alan
-- Needs more cowbell. |
«
Return to ibm-netrexx
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |