ibm-netrexx

NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

Classic

List

Threaded

33 messages Options

ThSITC

Introducing TRINARY Logic in Programs.

Whil'st underlining Tom Maynard comments (below), some of you might
*still reminder* (maybe) a
discussion some 1-2 years ago (cannot recall whther it has been on
RexxLA, *or* ibm-netrexx):

As Far as I can recall this (totally un-Rexx related, as some of my
contributions always seem to be),

*I* did propse to introduce, what I'm calling *TRINARY LOGIC*, in computers.

*TRINARY LOGIC* shall be more *human* then pure TRUE *and* FALSE.

In reality, the *human brain* is somewhat different:

Something, in my *personal human experience*, is telling me, that
*humans* do *not think*
in *pure binary logic*.

There seem to be (at least) 3 dimensions of *our thinking*:

TRUE, FALSE, *and* UNKNOWN.

you might *number those*, *as you like*

*Interesting thing is*, when *2 humans* are talking about something (for
instanc, discussing something):

When both do say: TRUE, TRUE: *no issue*, at all, *agreed*, *nothing to
talk abot this team anymore.
Same for both saying: FALSE, FALSE *to the same issue*. *Agreement*, any
further *talk* will be *waste of time*

All *other* *combinations* are, at least in my opinion, *the more
important ones* ...

Think (when you like), a bit, about that.

By the way, those TRINARY elements are, where upon everthing as *Fuzzy
Logic* and/or *Artificial Intelligence*
is all built upon (at least that, what I do know about thoe recurrent
fields of research and developments.

When this is *totally out of topic* for this ibm-netrexx discussion
group, just drop the note.

I am, however, *implementing* aType *Trinary*, anyway ... ;-)

Interesting algorithms, which may and can be implemented using this *new
Type*

Massa Thomas. <Crazy Uncle Tom>, Vienna, Austria.

Most interestingly, part of the *Tractatus Logicus* (authored by
Wittgenstein an Austrian Philosoph
back in the early 1920's) ), has then to be revised a bit ... ;-)

=========================================================================

Am 07.08.2012 17:04, schrieb Tom Maynard:

> On 08/07/2012 07:10 AM, Walter Pachl wrote:
>> That's the fifth incarnation and does not really answer my question.
>> Is it worthwhile NOT to simply use 1 and 0 and under which
>> circumstances?
>
> I'll try harder to answer your question. If you agree with Mike (and
> his flawless logic is hard to refute), then using "0" and "1" is
> elegant, simple, error-free, clear, and concise. [I said it was hard
> to refute.]
>
> I've been rapped on the knuckles too often by the "Sisters of the Holy
> Program" during my formative years, and while I agree wholeheartedly
> with Mike's position, I shudder at the thought -- and am revulsed by
> the sight -- of a naked one or zero hanging out of my code. It's akin
> to tucking your shirt into your underpants ... at least to me.
>
> I felt that way in the 1980's, and I still feel that way thirty years
> later -- I'm a hopeless case, I admit it.
>
> Ultimately "worthwhile" is in the eye (and mind) of the beholder. I
> feel (and Mike disagrees) that "true" and "false" are more clear, less
> subject to misinterpretation and more portable, and ultimately "safer"
> (however you choose to interpret that) than using -- what I will still
> always refer to, at least mentally -- as "magic numbers" in my code.
>
> The choice then falls to you: Join me "under the eaves of the Normal
> Distribution", or stand with the man who designed and created the
> language itself. No harm, no foul.
>
> Write your programs in the fashion that satisfies your inner aesthetic
> (and your conscience).
>
> Tom.
> P.S. Another way of looking at this is, while constructing a bit of
> program logic, say to yourself: "Okay, so if this condition is ...."
> And then insert the word "true" and let that roll around on your
> tongue Now try say it again, substituting "one" and see how that
> compares. Then decide which one to use.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>
>

--
Thomas Schneider CEO ThSITC IT Consulting KG Erdbergstr. 52-60/1/13 1030
Wien Austria, Europe Skype ID: Thomas.Schneider.Wien Member of the Rexx
Languge Asscociation (www.rexxla.org) Member of the NetRexx Developer's
Team (www.netrexx.org)

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)

www.thsitc.com
www.db-123.com

christel.u.w.pachl christel.u.w.pachl

Re: Introducing TRINARY Logic in Programs.

" am, however, *implementing* aType *Trinary*, anyway ... ;-)"

How about finishing something first ???

Walter

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

ThSITC

Re: Introducing TRINARY Logic in Programs.

Yes: Everything!

Commercial Products, However, first (all Rexx / NetRexx related has less
priority, sorry).

Need to *earn* money, as well ...

... very busy with prospects, as well (not to note the roducts again on
this *unrelated group*)

But as far as Rexx Family is involved:

My Release plan is:

org.netrexx.thsitc.runtime.compatibility
org.netrexx.thsitc.utils (including your slightly enhanced commpaxx.nrx
with option -recurse, as well)

Update of www.thsitc.com home page & docs of runtime.compatibility
(formerly: Rexx2Nrx.Rxx2RT)

RexxForm (all Rexx Dialects, including IBM Compiled Rexx, Netrexx, of
course, too)

Rexx2Nrx release 7.00 (5 & 6 did never go public; Have been used to
BOOTSTRAP
my ancient *IBM classic COMPILED Rexx*, using a LOT of /*%INCLUDE ...*/ ...

... Each former INCLUDE became NetRexx class now!

Just *work in progress* ...

... It' SUMMER TIME!

Hope this helps.

Thomas.

PS: class (Type) Trinary is pat of the Rey language, to me annunced and
demo'd on
the next RexxLA meeting... Until then, it' my own experimental new
language ... ;-)

=========================================================================

Am 07.08.2012 18:10, schrieb Walter Pachl:

> " am, however, *implementing* aType *Trinary*, anyway ... ;-)"
>
> How about finishing something first ???
>
> Walter
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>
>

Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)

www.thsitc.com
www.db-123.com

Kermit Kiser

Re: What was the name of that program that queried your environment?

In reply to this post by kenner

Envirotest can be downloaded from here:

http://kenai.com/projects/netrexx-plus/downloads/directory/Envirotest

-- Kermit

On 8/7/2012 6:14 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

envirocheck?

Kenneth Klein

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Tom Maynard

Re: NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

In reply to this post by ThSITC

On 08/07/2012 08:39 AM, Thomas Schneider wrote:

1.) Am I true that *Clojure* is just another Language running on the JVM?

That is correct.

Did you already try/use it?

Of course. I have invested rather a lot of time/resources to building a comfortable development environment for Clojure hacking.

What are the advantages/disadvantages as compared to Netrex, as you see it?

Very little comparison is possible: Clojure exists on an entirely different branch of the programming language tree. It is a "child of Lisp" ... a functional language that strives to avoid both object orientation and the imperative style, while at the same time allowing full access to all the Java runtime libraries.

2.) I *strongy* would like to underline your note (below) that *true* and *false* (as *not*, *and*, *or*, and *xor*, i my (personal opinion, as well) should be *defined words* in all Rexx Dialects, including NetRexx, *by default*).

Mike has already stated that they are: they are spelled "1" and "0". That is a completely adequate default.

This is not the forum for further discussion of this nature. As you might say, "**FULL STOP** from my side."

Tom.

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

ThSITC

Re: NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

Hi Tom,

a) thanks for your insights relating Clojure.
b) Full stop on other points *agreed* from my side! wrong forum!

Sorry always repeating my personal opinions, endlessly.

Will *try my best* to avoid to re-raising those discussions, again, boring you all!

NetRexx is, as it has been designed by MFC, is well done, and compilig and running bug-less!

And that's why I exactly do love it, and use it, wherever I can!

Thanks for reminder, Tom! :)
Thomas.
===============================================================================
.
Am 07.08.2012 20:37, schrieb Tom Maynard:

On 08/07/2012 08:39 AM, Thomas Schneider wrote:

1.) Am I true that *Clojure* is just another Language running on the JVM?

That is correct.

Did you already try/use it?

Of course. I have invested rather a lot of time/resources to building a comfortable development environment for Clojure hacking.

What are the advantages/disadvantages as compared to Netrex, as you see it?

Very little comparison is possible: Clojure exists on an entirely different branch of the programming language tree. It is a "child of Lisp" ... a functional language that strives to avoid both object orientation and the imperative style, while at the same time allowing full access to all the Java runtime libraries.

2.) I *strongy* would like to underline your note (below) that *true* and *false* (as *not*, *and*, *or*, and *xor*, i my (personal opinion, as well) should be *defined words* in all Rexx Dialects, including NetRexx, *by default*).

Mike has already stated that they are: they are spelled "1" and "0". That is a completely adequate default.

This is not the forum for further discussion of this nature. As you might say, "**FULL STOP** from my side."

Tom.
_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)

www.thsitc.com
www.db-123.com

ThSITC

Re: Introducing TRINARY Logic in Programs.

In reply to this post by christel.u.w.pachl christel.u.w.pachl

Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)

www.thsitc.com
www.db-123.com

ThSITC

Introducing TRINARY Logic in Programs.

In reply to this post by Tom Maynard

Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)

www.thsitc.com
www.db-123.com

ThSITC

Re: NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

In reply to this post by Tom Maynard

Hi Tom,

   1.) Am I true that *Clojure* is just another Language running on the JVM? Did you already try/use it? What are the advantages/disadvantages as compared to Netrex, as you see it?
   2.) I *strongy* would like to underline your note (below) that *true* and *false* (as *not*, *and*, *or*, and *xor*, i my (personal opinion, as well) should be *defined words* in all Rexx Dialects, including NetRexx, *by default*).

   I cannot recall, hw many times I did, switching between many different Computer Languages, I did wonder, especially in *classic Rexx*, why I didn't get the result *I did expect*, simply because inadvertant use of some clause like:

    if (a = 3 or b=2) then do ...

   *as classic Rexx* simply considered*or* to be equivalent to 'OR', and took the *blank operation*, bombing at RUN-Time only.

   NetRexx, of course, will also try a *blank operation*, but at least does report *or* as an *unknown variable* !

Of course, this is my *personal opiniton*. Won't want to initiate a long discussion, indeed, but I'm simp
.

Am 06.08.2012 13:52, schrieb Tom Maynard:

On 08/06/2012 03:53 AM, rvjansen wrote:

I always just use 1 (or 0) and trust the compiler to do the right thing (cast to boolean). What is in Rosetta is perhaps conceptually cleaner but I never would have thought of it.

Personally I always use the (1 == 1) and (1 == 0) constructs, since "truthiness" sometimes changes. In NetRexx, "0" is "false", but in Clojure it's "true"! -- and both languages are hosted on the JVM. And moreover I was always taught to have a strong dislike for hard coding "magic numbers" and constants. But that's just me (and anybody I can catch by the lapel near the water cooler...).

And yes, REXX's lack of its own "true" and "false" always bugged me ... ever since the "dinosaur days" of VM/CMS, where I first began using it.

Tom.
_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)

www.thsitc.com
www.db-123.com

ThSITC

Re: NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

In reply to this post by Tom Maynard

On 08/06/2012 03:53 AM, rvjansen wrote:

I always just use 1 (or 0) and trust the compiler to do the right thing (cast to boolean). What is in Rosetta is perhaps conceptually cleaner but I never would have thought of it.

Personally I always use the (1 == 1) and (1 == 0) constructs, since "truthiness" sometimes changes. In NetRexx, "0" is "false", but in Clojure it's "true"! -- and both languages are hosted on the JVM. And moreover I was always taught to have a strong dislike for hard coding "magic numbers" and constants. But that's just me (and anybody I can catch by the lapel near the water cooler...).

And yes, REXX's lack of its own "true" and "false" always bugged me ... ever since the "dinosaur days" of VM/CMS, where I first began using it.

Tom.
_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)

www.thsitc.com
www.db-123.com

christel.u.w.pachl christel.u.w.pachl

Re: NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

In reply to this post by rvjansen

On Clojure look at
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Clojure
if you are interested

http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Ternary_logic
shows how ooRexx might handle it

Walter

---- Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> schrieb:

> Hi Tom,
>
> 1.) Am I true that *Clojure* is just another Language running on the
> JVM? Did you already try/use it? What are the advantages/disadvantages
> as compared to Netrex, as you see it?
> 2.) I *strongy* would like to underline your note (below) that
> *true* and *false* (as *not*, *and*, *or*, and *xor*, i my (personal
> opinion, as well) should be *defined words* in all Rexx Dialects,
> including NetRexx, *by default*).
>
> I cannot recall, hw many times I did, switching between many
> different Computer Languages, I did wonder, especially in *classic
> Rexx*, why I didn't get the result *I did expect*, simply because
> inadvertant use of some clause like:
>
> if (a = 3 or b=2) then do ...
>
> *as classic Rexx* simply considered*or* to be equivalent to 'OR',
> and took the *blank operation*, bombing at RUN-Time only.
>
> NetRexx, of course, will also try a *blank operation*, but at least
> does report *or* as an *unknown variable* !
>
> Of course, this is my *personal opiniton*. Won't want to initiate a long
> discussion, indeed, but I'm simp
> .
>
> Am 06.08.2012 13:52, schrieb Tom Maynard:
> > On 08/06/2012 03:53 AM, rvjansen wrote:
> >> I always just use 1 (or 0) and trust the compiler to do the right
> >> thing (cast to boolean). What is in Rosetta is perhaps conceptually
> >> cleaner but I never would have thought of it.
> >
> > Personally I always use the (1 == 1) and (1 == 0) constructs, since
> > "truthiness" sometimes changes. In NetRexx, "0" is "false", but in
> > Clojure it's "true"! -- and both languages are hosted on the JVM. And
> > moreover I was always taught to have a strong dislike for hard coding
> > "magic numbers" and constants. But that's just me (and anybody I can
> > catch by the lapel near the water cooler...).
> >
> > And yes, REXX's lack of its own "true" and "false" always bugged me
> > ... ever since the "dinosaur days" of VM/CMS, where I first began
> > using it.
> >
> > Tom.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Online Archive :http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
> >
>
>
> --
> Thomas Schneider CEO ThSITC IT Consulting KG Erdbergstr. 52-60/1/13 1030
> Wien Austria, Europe Skype ID: Thomas.Schneider.Wien Member of the Rexx
> Languge Asscociation (www.rexxla.org) Member of the NetRexx Developer's
> Team (www.netrexx.org)

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Rony G. Flatscher (wu-wien)

Re: NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

On 10.08.2012 12:22, Walter Pachl wrote:

On Clojure look at
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Clojure
if you are interested

http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Ternary_logic
shows how ooRexx might handle it

Just a quick look, the otuput of:

or operation (|)
... cut ...
Maybe | True: Maybe
... cut ...

should yield True ?

---rony

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

rickmcguire

Re: NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

Oops, yes there is a small typo in the or method (now corrected).

Rick

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Rony G. Flatscher <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 10.08.2012 12:22, Walter Pachl wrote:
On Clojure look at
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Clojure
if you are interested

http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Ternary_logic
shows how ooRexx might handle it  
Just a quick look, the otuput of:
or operation (|)
... cut ...
Maybe | True: Maybe
... cut ...
should yield True ?

---rony
_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/