NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

[rvjansen]

Release Candidate 3 has been released to http://www.netrexx.org/files/NetRexx-3.01RC3.zip

This release will be the final 3.01 release if there are no showstoppers reported in the next few weeks (while documentation work will continue).

Differences to RC2 are listed in the readme.txt file; there are a few bug fixes and documentation changes, including file names that will be better understandable for people new to the language.
Addition of a standalone Java compiler now enables all forms of program development on Java JRE only systems.

This release is now feature complete. Things that will have to wait to the next release are collection class support and the GUI installer.

The website will be updated as soon as time allows.

Please test this release in your own environment and report every concern, preferable as a JIRA issue on the NetRexx project site at http://kenai.com/projects/netrexx - or on this list.

best regards,

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

[Tom Maynard]

On 08/05/2012 06:02 PM, René Jansen wrote:
> Release Candidate 3 has been released

René, you are a wonder.  I have seen all the work you put into this
release (my inbox received nearly daily update notifications).  And I
for one want to thank you for looking after "the baby."  It takes an
astonishing amount of work -- a lot of it little fiddly things that are
often overlooked -- and you have pulled this off single-handedly.

Kudos to you, sir.  Thank you for your time, and for your care of this
project.

RexxLA could not be in better hands.
Tom.

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

[Dave Woodman]

Please allow me to add my thanks to those of Tom, and I am sure, everyone
else on the list for a job well done!

        Dave.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Maynard
Sent: 06 August 2012 03:32
To: IBM Netrexx
Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

On 08/05/2012 06:02 PM, René Jansen wrote:
> Release Candidate 3 has been released

René, you are a wonder.  I have seen all the work you put into this release
(my inbox received nearly daily update notifications).  And I for one want
to thank you for looking after "the baby."  It takes an astonishing amount
of work -- a lot of it little fiddly things that are often overlooked -- and
you have pulled this off single-handedly.

Kudos to you, sir.  Thank you for your time, and for your care of this
project.

RexxLA could not be in better hands.
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/

[christel.u.w.pachl christel.u.w.pachl]

thanks for new stuff
First observation:
rosettacode examples come a oneliners !?!?

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

[christel.u.w.pachl christel.u.w.pachl]

Oooops.
My fault.
Opening them uses the wrong editr (notepad?)  here
Kedit shows them allright.
Sorry
Walter
---- Walter Pachl <[hidden email]> schrieb:
> thanks for new stuff
> First observation:
> rosettacode examples come a oneliners !?!?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

[christel.u.w.pachl christel.u.w.pachl]

One question though:
Will I find in the books why I should use one of these incarnations

   True  = Rexx(1 == 1)

   method isTrue public static returns boolean
     return 1 == 1      

instead of just using 1 ?

RCBooleanValues.nrx uses the method above

Is it (just) for performance? and worthwhile??

Walter

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

[rvjansen]

Walter,

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.

best regards,

René.

On 2012-08-06 08:45, Walter Pachl wrote:

> One question though:
> Will I find in the books why I should use one of these incarnations
>
>    True  = Rexx(1 == 1)
>
>    method isTrue public static returns boolean
>      return 1 == 1
>
> instead of just using 1 ?
>
> RCBooleanValues.nrx uses the method above
>
> Is it (just) for performance? and worthwhile??
>
> Walter
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

[christel.u.w.pachl christel.u.w.pachl]

So
could the authos or rosetta examples elaborate on that?
How is the newbie (me) to learn from the examples?
Thanks
Walter

---- rvjansen <[hidden email]> schrieb:
> Walter,

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.

best regards,

René.

On 2012-08-06 08:45, Walter Pachl wrote:

> One question though:
> Will I find in the books why I should use one of these incarnations
>
>    True  = Rexx(1 == 1)
>
>    method isTrue public static returns boolean
>      return 1 == 1
>
> instead of just using 1 ?
>
> RCBooleanValues.nrx uses the method above
>
> Is it (just) for performance? and worthwhile??
>
> Walter
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/



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

[rvjansen]

Thank you for the compliments; they are most welcome.

In reality, this is a work of numerous people who form an open source
community in the true sense of the word. I am not naming names in the
fear of leaving anyone out, but my thanks go out to the whole
development team, the ARB members who made the discussions and decision
making process go smooth, and all the list members who contributed with
ideas, criticism, and code contributions and improvements.

I would like to single out Kermit Kiser, who has delivered numerous
improvements, as can be read in the readme.txt file that accompanies the
distribution. For this work, Kermit has been promoted to the NetRexx
Language ARB (Architecture Review Board) by the RexxLA board.

When RC3 makes it to 3.01, the ARB will start work on the new roadmap.
Part of the discussions certainly will be:

- collection class support / generics
- a gui installer that optionally uses the new standalone compiler
support
- annotations
- a code repository
- more documentation, on usage but also on translator workings

The NetRexx project is dependent on individuals contributing their time
and ideas. Whenever you have an idea, and some time, please make sure it
has a good specification and maybe some code to illustrate. When it
comes to documenting first and then implementing, we make no jokes.

I want to thank everyone on this list for spending time with our
favorite language.

best regards,

René Jansen.





On 2012-08-06 07:58, Dave Woodman wrote:

> Please allow me to add my thanks to those of Tom, and I am sure,
> everyone
> else on the list for a job well done!
>
> Dave.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Maynard
> Sent: 06 August 2012 03:32
> To: IBM Netrexx
> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released
>
> On 08/05/2012 06:02 PM, René Jansen wrote:
>> Release Candidate 3 has been released
>
> René, you are a wonder.  I have seen all the work you put into this
> release
> (my inbox received nearly daily update notifications).  And I for one
> want
> to thank you for looking after "the baby."  It takes an astonishing
> amount
> of work -- a lot of it little fiddly things that are often overlooked
> -- and
> you have pulled this off single-handedly.
>
> Kudos to you, sir.  Thank you for your time, and for your care of
> this
> project.
>
> RexxLA could not be in better hands.
> 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/

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

[Kermit Kiser]

Thanks for the great work, René!

-- Kermit

On 8/5/2012 4:02 PM, René Jansen wrote:

> Release Candidate 3 has been released to http://www.netrexx.org/files/NetRexx-3.01RC3.zip
>
> This release will be the final 3.01 release if there are no showstoppers reported in the next few weeks (while documentation work will continue).
>
> Differences to RC2 are listed in the readme.txt file; there are a few bug fixes and documentation changes, including file names that will be better understandable for people new to the language.
> Addition of a standalone Java compiler now enables all forms of program development on Java JRE only systems.
>
> This release is now feature complete. Things that will have to wait to the next release are collection class support and the GUI installer.
>
> The website will be updated as soon as time allows.
>
> Please test this release in your own environment and report every concern, preferable as a JIRA issue on the NetRexx project site at http://kenai.com/projects/netrexx - or on this list.
>
> best regards,
>
> René.
> _______________________________________________
> 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]

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/

[Mike Cowlishaw]

Re 1 and 0...

And moreover I was always taught to have a strong dislike for hard coding "magic numbers" and constants.  

 

I find it hard to argue that 0 and 1 are magic numbers :-) ... even in the USA the symbols 0 and 1 are used for Off and On.   And they are a lot shorter to type -- and much more widely understood -- than the English words 'false' and 'true'  (both of which have multiple meanings, nuances, and translations in other languages). 

 
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. 

 

But it does have its own.  They are spelled '1' and '0' (unlike C, for example, where they are implementation-defined [often "non-zero" and "zero"] and therefore an abstraction/name is needed).   Since in REXX  1 and 0 are defined as the only allowed values for logical operations, there is no need of (or advantage in having) a special 'boolean' type. 

 

(REXX also does not have pre-defined names for constants such as TEN or THOUSAND or MILLION, for similar reasons.)

 

Mike

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

[christel.u.w.pachl christel.u.w.pachl]

I agree, of course, wholeheartedly.

However, with NetRexx is 1 a Rexx string or boolean ?

Walter

Von: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Mike Cowlishaw
Gesendet: Montag, 06. August 2012 16:53
An: 'IBM Netrexx'
Betreff: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

 

Re 1 and 0...

And moreover I was always taught to have a strong dislike for hard coding "magic numbers" and constants.  

 

I find it hard to argue that 0 and 1 are magic numbers :-) ... even in the USA the symbols 0 and 1 are used for Off and On.   And they are a lot shorter to type -- and much more widely understood -- than the English words 'false' and 'true'  (both of which have multiple meanings, nuances, and translations in other languages). 

 
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. 

 

But it does have its own.  They are spelled '1' and '0' (unlike C, for example, where they are implementation-defined [often "non-zero" and "zero"] and therefore an abstraction/name is needed).   Since in REXX  1 and 0 are defined as the only allowed values for logical operations, there is no need of (or advantage in having) a special 'boolean' type. 

 

(REXX also does not have pre-defined names for constants such as TEN or THOUSAND or MILLION, for similar reasons.)

 

Mike

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

[Mike Cowlishaw]

As in Rexx, everything in NetRexx is conceptually a string, but you can assign a type (such as 'boolean') to a value and (in this case) it can only have the values '0' or '1'.  See the documentation ...

 

Mike

 

---

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Walter Pachl
Sent: 06 August 2012 17:03
To: 'IBM Netrexx'
Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

I agree, of course, wholeheartedly.

However, with NetRexx is 1 a Rexx string or boolean ?

Walter

Von: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Mike Cowlishaw
Gesendet: Montag, 06. August 2012 16:53
An: 'IBM Netrexx'
Betreff: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] NetRexx 3.01 RC3 released

 

Re 1 and 0...

And moreover I was always taught to have a strong dislike for hard coding "magic numbers" and constants.  

 

I find it hard to argue that 0 and 1 are magic numbers :-) ... even in the USA the symbols 0 and 1 are used for Off and On.   And they are a lot shorter to type -- and much more widely understood -- than the English words 'false' and 'true'  (both of which have multiple meanings, nuances, and translations in other languages). 

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. 

 

But it does have its own.  They are spelled '1' and '0' (unlike C, for example, where they are implementation-defined [often "non-zero" and "zero"] and therefore an abstraction/name is needed).   Since in REXX  1 and 0 are defined as the only allowed values for logical operations, there is no need of (or advantage in having) a special 'boolean' type. 

 

(REXX also does not have pre-defined names for constants such as TEN or THOUSAND or MILLION, for similar reasons.)

 

Mike

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

[ThSITC]

Hi Walter,

May I suggest that you do simply use:

properties constant

True    = boolean 1
False  = boolean 0

Thomas.
===========================================================
Am 06.08.2012 08:45, schrieb Walter Pachl:

> One question though:
> Will I find in the books why I should use one of these incarnations
>
>     True  = Rexx(1 == 1)
>
>     method isTrue public static returns boolean
>       return 1 == 1
>
> instead of just using 1 ?
>
> RCBooleanValues.nrx uses the method above
>
> Is it (just) for performance? and worthwhile??
>
> Walter
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

[christel.u.w.pachl christel.u.w.pachl]

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?

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

> Hi Walter,
>
> May I suggest that you do simply use:
>
> properties constant
>
> True    = boolean 1
> False  = boolean 0
>
> Thomas.
> ===========================================================
> Am 06.08.2012 08:45, schrieb Walter Pachl:
> > One question though:
> > Will I find in the books why I should use one of these incarnations
> >
> >     True  = Rexx(1 == 1)
> >
> >     method isTrue public static returns boolean
> >       return 1 == 1
> >
> > instead of just using 1 ?
> >
> > RCBooleanValues.nrx uses the method above
> >
> > Is it (just) for performance? and worthwhile??
> >
> > Walter
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
>

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

[kenner]

envirocheck?



Kenneth Klein

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

[ThSITC]

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 opinion*. Won't want to initiate a long discussion, indeed, but I'm simply thinking that
we shall have a common agreement of the meanuing of commonly used operators in the IT Languages....

Otherwise, we are npt building a *reliable IT ARCHITECTURE*  here, we are introducing a BABYLON-like confusion ! :-(

Thomas.
=============================================================================================.

.
 
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/

[Fernando Cassia-2]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:44 AM, rvjansen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I want to thank everyone on this list for spending time with our favorite
> language.

Thanks to you René!.
I´m too busy right now with other endeavours but I plan to give
NetRexx some time soon. Or at least, hope so.

Great technology should never die and such is the case of Rexx and NetRexx.

FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
- George Orwell

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

[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/