People who loved Rexx now speak about it in past tense... :/
Locked
123
123
People who loved Rexx now speak about it in past tense... :/
 
|
http://pages.citebite.com/f1o4y1k2nlge
With open source implementations like Regina and OOrexx, I think this speaks volumes about the lack of promotion of the language.
In fact, I remember some years ago seeing a request to drop Regina Rexx from debian repositories becuse "who uses it anyway?" (sic). Luckily that decision was later reversed and to this day debian repos carry up to date versions of Regina..
This goes to say, I think there´s plenty of room for evangelizing and promotion of Rexx as a language. Q: Are there any efforts by the RexxLA to get rexx into other open source products? For instance, by pure chance, I ran across a package which claims to allow scripting OpenOffice from Rexx. It´d be great if this could be added to the official OO.o trunk...
Food for thought... FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
While you make a valid point about the lack of (oo/net)Rexx
proselytizing by RexxLA, in all fairness that discussion was about OS/2. The poster was saying that he loved OBJECT REXX on OS/2. I don't disagree with him, either. -Chip- On 8/20/10 06:11 Fernando Cassia said: > http://pages.citebite.com/f1o4y1k2nlge > > With open source implementations like Regina and OOrexx, I think this > speaks volumes about the lack of promotion of the language. > > In fact, I remember some years ago seeing a request to drop Regina Rexx > from debian repositories becuse "who uses it anyway?" (sic). Luckily > that decision was later reversed and to this day debian repos carry up > to date versions of Regina.. > > This goes to say, I think there´s plenty of room for evangelizing and > promotion of Rexx as a language. > > Q: Are there any efforts by the RexxLA to get rexx into other open > source products? For instance, by pure chance, I ran across a package > which claims to allow scripting OpenOffice from Rexx. It´d be great if > this could be added to the official OO.o trunk... > > Food for thought... > FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: People who loved Rexx now speak about it in past tense... :/
|
|
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Chip Davis <[hidden email]> wrote:
While you make a valid point about the lack of (oo/net)Rexx proselytizing by RexxLA, in all fairness that discussion was about OS/2. The poster was saying that he loved OBJECT REXX on OS/2. Chip, Well, if he knew Rexx was available for Windows or Linux, maybe, he´d have said "I loved Rexx in OS/2, that´s why I continue using it in xyz..:".
But in any case, that is subject to interpretation. As you figured, the link included was just an excuse by me to rant about the lack of Rexx proselytizing. :) FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Fernando Cassia-2
certainly food for thought.
Note that the slashdot article is about OS/2 and the past tense could be caused by association with the particular Rexx that was in there. Not in the first OS/2 SE version, because that was vetoed by Mircrosoft who knew a good thing which they did not have the rights to when they saw it. It was in EE, which had Database Manager, the forerunner of DB2 LUW that was probably the worst out of the box experience ever for enterprise software. (Well, for software that worked actuallty pretty well when it had bound itself to its catalog after half an hour). But do remember that both SE and EE were dogs (no offence to Fido from the neighbour next door intended) until some real systems people at IBM re-wrote part of it in assembler starting from 1.3 - and I have been told that it did not run very well at all until the original MS scheduler was taken out and replaced by something the VM people thought up). Note that SAA (that declared Rexx the cross-platform procedures language) and OS/2 together are the primary reasons that the non-VM or MVS crowd got to know Rexx, Mansfield Rexx on DOS nonewithstanding. It peaked with those, and it was a disappointment to most of us when Workplace OS was cancelled - it spelled doom for all things connected to OS/2 and its components. It is not the better things that win; let's fast forward the video recorders but let us do include workplace shell and SOM into the equation. There is no question that activity around Rexx peaked in 1995 and was impacted with OS/2's reputation, not its quality. A: I think that that is exactly what Prof. Rony Flatscher is doing right now. It is the plan, and it is a good plan, because Rexx will be in the limelight because of the good things that it does, and that can be shown. I think when Rexx would have been perfectly "marketed", but without its intrinsic quality, it would not even be around. It started out as what certain circles saw as a kind of 'rogue' development and it won the hearts and minds through quality of its design, implementation and support. It became a product by popular demand. I have seen perfect books, campaigns and slide decks for products you have never heard of. Now to the present of Rexx. I am using some form of Rexx every day in my work and even my not-so profitable other activities. Currently I do not have a programming job, but am managing a bunch of technical people. I can do that easier because I am not bound by Excel or other limited paradigms. People do ask me for information and send me invariably spreadsheets, which I invariably drop to csv in order to run the Parse on it as a start of activity that yields more information than the owners thought off. Note that it is slightly off-topic for the netrexx list but I am sure the admin will allow it. This should be on the RexxLA list, and I invite you to become a member. Note that on the RexxLA list Prof. Flatscher is fine-tuning the oooRexx integration package's tagline for maximum impact, and I applaud that, and the way that a lot of native speakers are helping him. best regards, René Jansen. President, RexxLA On 20 aug 2010, at 08:11, Fernando Cassia wrote: http://pages.citebite.com/f1o4y1k2nlge _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: People who loved Rexx now speak about it in past tense... :/
|
|
<<
Note that it is slightly off-topic for the netrexx list but I am sure the admin will allow it. This should be on the RexxLA list, and I invite you to become a member. Note that on the RexxLA list Prof. Flatscher is fine-tuning the oooRexx integration package's tagline for maximum impact, and I applaud that, and the way that a lot of native speakers are helping him. >> Off topic even more, but why do I need to pay for membership of RexxLA? No doubt I'll join if it were free. Best regards Marc Remes IBM Certified IT Specialist IBM Global Technology Services Mobile: 32 475 33 8162 mailto:mremes@... Tenzij hierboven anders aangegeven: / Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus: / Unless otherwise stated above: International Business Machines of Belgium sprl / bvba Siège social / Maatschappelijke zetel: Avenue du Bourget 42 Bourgetlaan, B-1130 Bruxelles/Brussel N° d'entreprise / Ondernemingsnr: TVA / BTW BE 0405 912 336 RPM Bruxelles / RPR Brussel _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
smime.p7s (12K) |
|
I would be active on the RexxLA list as well if it were free. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Remes
On 8/20/10 12:24 Marc Remes said:
> << > Note that it is slightly off-topic for the netrexx list but I am sure > the admin will allow it. This should be on the RexxLA list, and I invite > you to become a member. Note that on the RexxLA list Prof. Flatscher is > fine-tuning the oooRexx integration package's tagline for maximum > impact, and I applaud that, and the way that a lot of native speakers > are helping him. > >> > > Off topic even more, but why do I need to pay for membership of RexxLA? > No doubt I'll join if it were free. Fair question. Short answer: the signal/noise ratio of comp.lang.rexx Longer answer: RexxLA membership represents a visible expression of commitment to the Rexx family of programming languages, and also to your colleagues who use them. The fee is very nominal (US$24) so it is more symbolic than financial (although we'll happily take donations if your generosity permits) and _ALL_ monies collected go to the support of Rexx in some way or another. These days they are used to fund the work of the ooRexx development team and the recurring costs of the RexxLA listserver. For example, we just had a bunch of domain names come up for renewal, there is rent on a maildrop for membership correspondence, etc. EVERYONE in the RexxLA organization is an unpaid volunteer and often a generous donor of time, resources, and expertise. Frankly, it is the easy access to the expertise that is worth much more to me than the membership dues. That, and the ability to contribute to the future of the Rexx family of programming languages. -Chip- _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: People who loved Rexx now speak about it in past tense... :/
|
|
Chip,
If NetRexx becomes a success, wouldn't you expect the use of ooRexx to whither, at least for new programming? NetRexx does so much more (perhaps most important, access to the Java class library). George On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Chip Davis <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
Ah, but ooRexx has the advantage of being able to program like Rexx; ie without having cope with Java classes. If objects conforming to the ethos of Rexx could obviate the need to use Java classes, at least for 90% of what we need to do, then we could expect ooRexx to whither. The lack of Rexx sympathetic objects is the Achilles heal of NetRexx.
Connor. On 20 Aug 2010, at 16:40, George Hovey wrote: Chip, _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Aviatrexx
It has always seemed contradictory to me that while RexxLA proclaims
it is "an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to
promoting the use and understanding of the Rexx programming
language", "established to further the understanding and use of the
Rexx programming language" and a "volunteer organization" which is
"supported by a dedicated group of volunteers", in fact it is a
closed industry group that as Chip describes, sells access to a
restricted mailing list.
If those are the goals and purposes of the organization, why isn't the membership open and the organization supported by donations? As for Chip's restricted mailing list, as a fund raising activity there would be no problem providing such a list for "contributing members". It seems to me that if the true purpose of RexxLA is the promotion of the Rexx language, the membership should be freely open to all. I have always refused to join RexxLA because it requires dues. I may well volunteer for an organization and contribute significant time and resources to it, but I will certainly not pay for the privilege. I would probably contribute well over the $24 membership fee, but I won't be coerced into doing so. Remember "Millions for defense but not a penny for tribute?" Certainly by restricting the membership, RexxLA also restricts "the ability to contribute to the future of the Rexx family of programming languages". It's all a bit too much like an "old boys club". Is RexxLA organized as a non-profit, tax-exempt organization under IRS rules? billfen On 8/20/2010 11:26 AM, Chip Davis wrote: On 8/20/10 12:24 Marc Remes said: _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: People who loved Rexx now speak about it in past tense... :/
|
|
In reply to this post by FreeFall
Fair enough. But if your view is typical, then what is the meaning of a "Rexx family of languages"? To me the common element is a similar simplified, uncluttered syntax. But if that isn't enough to attract users of one language to use the other (it isn't for me, either), then where is the "family"? You see the close connection of Java and NetRexx as a drawback, NetRexx users as its overwhelming strength.
Further, the development of ooRexx takes place in C++. It sounds like RexxLA can't even share developers between the two efforts. This begs the question "what is the relevance of RexxLA to the development of NetRexx". If people are going to pay money to belong to the organization, than they might prefer to directly target the language they favor. George On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Connor Birch <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
That is easy to answer. IBM has turned over responsibility and trademark of Object Rexx to RexxLA. RexxLA has legally bound itself to deliver support for it to the best of its ability. But to participate in the open source ooRexx community, you do not have to be a member of RexxLA. Just look it up at SourceForge, and join. And contribute, if only by downloading, installing and spreading the word. The RexxLA board does, however, vote on who is a committer to the official repository in order to safeguard its quality.
For NetRexx the situation will not be different. RexxLA will add this to its portfolio of Rexx products at some unspecified point in time, but we will not force anyone to become a member of RexxLA to, for example, add some treatment of interfaces or annotations to it, and if you are a committer, or send it to a committer and it is accepted. The relevance is the same. The exact criteria for what make a piece of software belong to the category of "Rexx Family of languages" can be debated (elsewhere) and it is fine by me if it means different things to different people, but there seems to be a general consensus that ooRexx and NetRexx are the object oriented followers-on to what has been retconned(1) into "Classic Rexx". The fact that ooRexx is written in C++ is undeniably true (but not totally true, as a fair part of its core classes is written in ooRexx), but the assumption that knowledge of NetRexx precludes one from knowing C++ is quite shaky. If someone has a principle that precludes him or her from contributing a symbolic sum to an association of like minded individuals, then I fully respect that, but we need to be able to decouple that principle from the relevance of RexxLA to the Rexx family of languages, which is huge, and the obligation to be a member of that association to contribute to that family, which is absent. To those that worry that any of the board or members make money off of it, you can rest assured, they don't. The other question about tax-deductability I did not quite get, but then, I am an IT person and not an accountant. I guess that if Rexx were tax-deductible, it would find a willing market. best regards, René Jansen. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity On 20 aug 2010, at 19:08, George Hovey wrote: Fair enough. But if your view is typical, then what is the meaning of a "Rexx family of languages"? To me the common element is a similar simplified, uncluttered syntax. But if that isn't enough to attract users of one language to use the other (it isn't for me, either), then where is the "family"? You see the close connection of Java and NetRexx as a drawback, NetRexx users as its overwhelming strength. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: People who loved Rexx now speak about it in past tense... :/
|
|
Rene,
I am left with the feeling that you have evaded my core question: what makes ooRexx and NetRexx belong to the "Rexx family of languages" and presumably amenable to and worthy of co-development by the same organization? Is it that each contains the four-character sequence "Rexx" in their names? I once read an online symposium on the subject of "C-based programming Languages". The invited panel were the people ordinarily regarded as the inventors of C, C++ and Java. It turned out that the last two vehemently denied that their languages were "C-based" or even related to one another, although their syntaxes bore a resemblance. I think a similar statement might be made about ooRexx (and all other forms of "Rexx" I've heard of) and NetRexx. Would you agree that development of NetRexx 3.0 will require a strong knowledge of and extensive experience with Java? If so, other than yourself, do the RexxLA developers meet this requirement? Or are even interested in NetRexx development? I personally am interested only in NetRexx, which I feel supplanted all other forms of "Rexx". I can understand that reasonable people might come to a different conclusion, but why should we be bound together? What's the advantage? Does it speed the development of either language? George On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:10 PM, René Jansen <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
George,
I think it is a good point you are making and indeed I avoided going to deep into it, because I do mean it when I say it might mean different things to different people. So anything that follows is just my personal opinion of this evening. First I think it is the general approach to things: the translator might be complex in order to keep the language simple. This is, I think, what is meant when it is said that it is a language for humans, not for computers. Secondly there are some identical concepts over all Rexx implementations that are missing or lacking in other languages. Parse, Trace, a variable might be treated as string or numerical, and there is nothing to declare, and in the case of NetRexx, nothing superfluous to declare. While I see the commonality, Thomas might very well comment on the small dissimilarities because he met those implementing his cross-Rexx product. (How is that for another free ad?) When I see the Rexx language family, I am mainly speaking about the common features of the VM and MVS products, the DOS and Windows interpreters, the VM/MVS compiler and library product, Object Rexx, Rexx/6000, imc/rexx, Regina. And there is lots more, and remind me to have a large list on the RexxLA web site some day. In a way the differences are what defines the common part. Speaking about differences is largely a problem of luxury. It is only now that you have a wide choice of architectures and platforms, and I remember my first ten years of Rexx were TSO only. For someone working on AIX, it might have been Rexx/6000 for years and years. When we got the Rexx compiler, for the first time we needed to fret about what was faster, the compiled interface for the external routines or the interpreter. And whether to compile to tokenized runtime modules or real linked load modules. Most native implementations share the same interface for external functions. On the mainframe you'd sometimes write them in assembler when it was easier for the targeted product, like RACF or JES2. The interfaces are similar across languages, and most modern native implementations have exactly the same interface, a point that is only illustrated and driven home by the recent 64/32 bits problems you might have heard about - or not, if you really only are focussed on NetRexx. There is an ISO standard for Rexx language implementations (ok, it might be ANSI) - what implements this rightly may be called a family. String functions (or better said, the things that can be treated as character or numerical) are indentical over Classis, ooRexx and NetRexx, where ooRexx has the luxury of specification as function argument or the more modern 'hidden instance pointer' (object oriented) paradigm. All implementations share the same string functions, in NetRexx implemented as methods on type Rexx. Treatment of decimal numbers in an intuitively and understandable, failsafe way is found across the Rexx language family. Here Rexx does not only implement an IEEE standard, it is more like the IEEE standard implements the Rexx language family way. The same goes for numerical precision and the mechanism to specify it. Interaction with the environment and the ability to be integrated as a macro language is shared over the language family - NetRexx is a bit spartan in a sense that reflects the early thoughts about platform and environment of the JVM implementors around 1995. This has changed and it might be time for an "address" or "outtrap" in NetRexx. The stream I/O library is seen, at least by most members of the RexxLA board including me, a part of the language family. In a version of the language definition that saw the light just after the integration of the 370 language interpreter into TSO, stream I/O functions were defined, remember that the VM interpreter used the native platform functions for this, oddly conforming to the NetRexx approach to this. These stream I/O functions were for some reason or another never included in the mainframe product, but delivered as a separate installable library. This library is crucial in writing compatible I/O routines and will be of value to Rexx users on the mainframe, and as such it is an object of interest to RexxLA. The library is written in PL/I, which is not beyond the capabilities of the RexxLA talent pool, but might spell trouble for the open sourcing. Fortunately PL/I can generate assembler listings which might enable us to skirt this problem. But there are no definite plans for this, and there will be no attempt at this done before we finish the currently running open source project. Regina is the open source implementation with most platforms to run on; it is of great interest to RexxLA, as is Thomas Scheiders' product, Rexx2Nrx, also (very recently) open sourced, that will make it possible to juggle different versions of Rexx and do assisted conversions from one platform to another. Further away in the future there might be other developments, like ooRexx and NetRexx approaching each other in the form of a new version of Object ANSI (or was it ISO) Rexx. We might see ooRexx running on virtual machines, or native versions of NetRexx. These are things that are limited by our imagination, talent and time. You might agree that there is more of the former and less of the latter two, and this is what makes it imported that talented people with time on their hands join RexxLA, to safeguard the things that make up this language family. I am in a very premature cooperation with some people from NetKernel, to make NetRexx one of the languages that it supports. I see some benefits in a server system that can replace and rollback functionality at runtime. This will probably need modifications to the translator - to run interpreted - and so it might not be seen for some time still; static NetRexx generated classes might be in much earlier. If you have a large and functioning family, like I have, you feel at home everywhere and you can do your work without minding the other people too much; I think the same goes for a language family; it has common roots, a patriarch, family stories and the occasional eccentric nephew. But this is what makes it a family. best regards, René Jansen. On 20 aug 2010, at 21:28, George Hovey wrote: > Rene, > I am left with the feeling that you have evaded my core question: what makes ooRexx and NetRexx belong to the "Rexx family of languages" and presumably amenable to and worthy of co-development by the same organization? Is it that each contains the four-character sequence "Rexx" in their names? I once read an online symposium on the subject of "C-based programming Languages". The invited panel were the people ordinarily regarded as the inventors of C, C++ and Java. It turned out that the last two vehemently denied that their languages were "C-based" or even related to one another, although their syntaxes bore a resemblance. I think a similar statement might be made about ooRexx (and all other forms of "Rexx" I've heard of) and NetRexx. > > Would you agree that development of NetRexx 3.0 will require a strong knowledge of and extensive experience with Java? If so, other than yourself, do the RexxLA developers meet this requirement? Or are even interested in NetRexx development? > > I personally am interested only in NetRexx, which I feel supplanted all other forms of "Rexx". I can understand that reasonable people might come to a different conclusion, but why should we be bound together? What's the advantage? Does it speed the development of either language? > George > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
All,
I'm left with the feeling that we have, in NetRexx, a language with an excellent advantage over other languages, ie the no-nonsence, programmer centric approach pioneered in Classic Rexx, and as such NetRexx has a huge potential. But this potential is hobbled by the need to use obtuse Java classes to accomplish even simple tasks. It is my opinion, that if NetRexx is to really take off, basic operations such as input and output, database transactions, etc., need to be built into the language in a no-nonsence manner consistent with the approach seen in the rest of Rexx, with the peculiarities of Java hidden from the programmer. At present we have an uncomfortable hybrid of two conflicting styles, and this is a major weakness. I would urge the development of NetRexx as a full and consistent stand alone language. When that is achieved, support for ooRexx could be provided largely by a tool to translate ooRexx into NetRexx (like the old Rexify program that translated EXEC and EXEC2 programs into Rexx). I recommend that this vision of NetRexx be adopted by the community, to both make using NetRexx as easy as using ooRexx and Classic Rexx, and allow NetRexx to break though and take its place as the world's favourite language. Regards, Connor. On 20 Aug 2010, at 20:28, George Hovey wrote: Rene, _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: People who loved Rexx now speak about it in past tense... :/
|
|
I agree.
Bob Hamilton On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Connor Birch <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by FreeFall
Hi Connor,
yes, this is what I mean when I said that these things mean different things to different people. I mostly use NetRexx myself in 'options binary' mode, and use the Java collection classes almost exclusively, foregoing any more rexxish usage - except for indexed strings which are great and remind me of stems. And parse and trace of course, without which I will not program. But is is entirely possible to morph NetRexx into a standalone language. Rexx2Nrx (how is that for a plug) has most of the things that make this possible, a small part of the compatibility layer even written by myself. So I will take good note of your recommendation and we will revisit this soon. Earlier we sounded this out and the majority then (including Mike's vote, that counts very heavily) concluded that this woud need to go into libraries instead of into the core. best regards, René Jansen. On 20 aug 2010, at 23:47, Connor Birch wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert L Hamilton
I think I disagree. Who in your open-source group will support the 400 ? HP-UX
?? Jrocket ??? Dependence on java is not a bad thing. There is no need to
bloat NetRexx with everyone’s personal design of the “new wheel”.
<Barbie> OH like, I wrote my own XML parser, and like I think it would like
be a like great addition </> There are things that would be fun to see in NetRexx, but not
using those “obtuse java classes” limits the people that can enjoy
to whatever OS you can support. I’d rather see tight additions to things – messaging
for instance. Where’s my pipe-wrench! From:
[hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert
Hamilton I agree. On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Connor Birch <[hidden email]>
wrote: All, I'm left with the feeling that we have, in NetRexx, a
language with an excellent advantage over other languages, ie the no-nonsence,
programmer centric approach pioneered in Classic Rexx, and as such NetRexx has
a huge potential. But this potential is hobbled by the need to use
obtuse Java classes to accomplish even simple tasks. It is my opinion, that if NetRexx is to really take off,
basic operations such as input and output, database transactions, etc., need to
be built into the language in a no-nonsence manner consistent with the approach
seen in the rest of Rexx, with the peculiarities of Java hidden from the
programmer. At present we have an uncomfortable hybrid of two
conflicting styles, and this is a major weakness. I would urge the development of NetRexx as a full and
consistent stand alone language. When that is achieved, support for
ooRexx could be provided largely by a tool to translate ooRexx into NetRexx
(like the old Rexify program that translated EXEC and EXEC2 programs into
Rexx). I recommend that this vision of NetRexx be adopted by the
community, to both make using NetRexx as easy as using ooRexx and Classic Rexx,
and allow NetRexx to break though and take its place as the world's favourite
language. Regards, Connor. On 20 Aug 2010, at 20:28, George Hovey wrote: _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: People who loved Rexx now speak about it in past tense... :/
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert L Hamilton
Hello there,
as Rene asked me for a #free ad# (in another mail on this issue). As most as you do know I'm working on ReyC, the Rey Compiler, which, when finished, *should* support classic Rexx, COBOL, PL/I, *and* ooRexx, and later maybe even NetRexx as the *source language* The sequence of releases will be: ReyC for classic Rexx (generating NetRexx at the minute, expected to be ready 01.September 2010 for first tries) ReyC for COBOL (generating NetRexx at the minute) ReyC for PL/I (the most complicaed one, as I think) ReyC for ooRexx (with some limitations, as implied by the language differences) When this is done (I expect to have it done by end of 2010), I will concentrate to optionally directly generate Java Byte Code. You might find a synopsis of the underlying steps (in a product called 'PP' (the Program Porting machine) on www.thsitc.com (still under construction, however). Note that whilst Rexx2Nrx has been written in classic Rexx (IBM compiled Rexx) and used to port itself to Java, I did now build a set of NetRexx Packages (mostly one to one corresponding to the former %include files in classic Rexx), and did abandon 'classic Rexx compatibility' of my source code (which I did much too late, looking at the past 8 years), ReyC and PP are now in NetRexx, although still using a lot of (static routines), as I did use my private version of Rexx2Nrx to due the port from classic Rexx %included files to NetRexx 'classes'. ReyC (and PP) will be open source products. Feel free to subscribe either/or group 'ReyC' and/or 'PP' on www.KENAI.com when interested to get all release notes etc, and access to the source code as well. As I'm still making heavy changes (especially in the Parsers) the sources are currently LOCKED for update, as I do currently NOT use SVN by myself. As soon as the alpha phase is closed, I will use SVN myself for updates. Currently, David Requena is kindly acting as my SVN administrator. The overall status of the project (both projects) is as follows: classic Rexx: completed 95 % (but you know, the latest 5% take a lot of time) COBOL: declarations completed, COBOL Code Parsing 90 % thru. PL/I declarations completed, PL/I Code parsing some 20 % thru. ooRexx: Parsing completed, currently no code generation avail. NetRexx parsing: NetRexx1 Parsing (without the supplements) completed. The whole soft is implemented NetRexx1, and, at the current minute, uses a lot of INDEXED strings for the 'various declaration attributes'. One of the *advantages* of my approach might be, that a COMMON INTERNAL DECL Format and a COMMON INTERNAL CODE Format is used for all languages, and also the Code Generator is common to all languages. One disadvantage is, that due to historical reasons (the COBOL Parser was invented for the Y2K transition at Donauland) and the limitations I had with 'classic rexx', some more modern strucures might be used when designed from scratch OO-oriented. I would like to finish COBOL & PL/I before I go forward for implementing the ooRexx to NetRexx translation, because I got some interests expressed here from IBM Austria, and COBOL and PL/I will be licensed products (measured by number of lines processed). classic Rexx, ooRexx, and NetRexx support will be free, as will be the run-time-package, implementing File I/O, function oriented versions of the 'builtin' NetRexx methods, etc. When the first alpha version (and the documentation updates) are ready for download (expected 1.October 2010), I will send a mail to ibm-netrexx, for sure... But I will keep the communication for those product centered on the group ReyC (which you can subscribe instantly). End of Advertisement (and release schedule) Thomas Schneider www.thsitc.com PS: Of course, the 'ancient' Rexx2Nrx code (classic IBM Compiled Rexx) will be open-sourced as well. PPS: when I would have been aware of REGINA at those times, I would have most probably never invented Rexx2Nrx, by the way. PPPS: I'm cc-ing ReyC to avoid to having to type this status update twice. Sorry ReyC group members. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Tom. (ths@db-123.com)
|
|
On 20 August 2010 16:20, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello there, No; he didn't "ask" for a free ad. He was giving you one. (He actually gave you two!) Please don't start this again, you're beginning to look like a candidate for a SPAM filter... -- Can't tweet, won't tweet! _______________________________________________ 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 |