Since NetRexx is Java.....
Locked
 
|
Hello fellow NetRexxers,
One of the Reasons I suggested using the ++ and *= is because it is found in native Java. If NetRexx catches on with native Java programmers as an alternative and easier way to write Java code they are going to be expecting to be able to use the ++, +=, *=, etc. I don't consider using ++ and += as a C/C++ thing, I consider it a Java thing. In addition, since using long descriptive variables is an easy way of self documentation, having the ++ or += does have its added benefits as I have said in earlier notes. What do you all think? Brad Simonin (A Java and Rexx Fan) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
Re: Since NetRexx is Java.....
|
|
>One of the Reasons I suggested using the ++ and *= is because it is
>found in native Java. If NetRexx catches on with native Java programmers But, NetRexx is not the JAVA language. It is another mapping of the Java VM to a language (it just happens to do this by compiling to the Java language). It does not need to support the detailed syntax of the Java language. >What do you all think? The more I read this thread, the less I like the idea. It is just to easy to cut&paste a long name for the case where ++/+= are used, and the "spelled out" manner of NetRexx is much clearer than this extra little syntax is. Peace. -njg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
Re: Since NetRexx is Java.....
|
|
Ciao,
Brad wrote: > One of the Reasons I suggested using the ++ and *= is because it is > found in native Java. If NetRexx catches on with native Java > programmers as an alternative and easier way to write Java code they > are going to be expecting to be able to use the ++, +=, *=, etc. Eh, I can understand your point of view.. On the other hand, one could say that NetRexx isn't Java or, better, that we've come here because we wanted a 'gentler' Java (thus running away from the very same ++, += notation or even the ton of unnecessary (){}s). > What do you all think? I think, out of the COBOL joke, (fortunately Cri now is some 20 miles away, on a 5250 terminal that keeps her from reading my mail) that there could be a more 'understandable', yet practical, solution. In my (humble, admittedly) opinion, one step forward would be to find a way to give a face to the object of the operation; my problem is that with '+=' one has to guess that it means: var = var + something while I could find acceptable the introdution of a new keyword, like 'itself' (or 'it', 'that', whatever) for example, as in: You_dont_want_a_name_longer_than_this = itself + 1 because it would show which is the object that the calculation is based upon. Va beh, ci ho provato.. :-) Max (Busy writing documentation for my first NetRexx beans) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
Re: Since NetRexx is Java.....
|
|
In reply to this post by BRADLEY
One of the reason I use NetRexx is that I don't have to deal with
brain twisters like ++ and --. When I want power I use assembly, when I want to impress (read confuse) somebody I use C/C++ , when I want to get the work done I use REXX. Let's keep NetRexx as simple as REXX. rather than as complicated as Java or C++. An ardent believer of the KISS principle. Sat >>> <[hidden email]> 12/05 8:46 AM >>> Hello fellow NetRexxers, One of the Reasons I suggested using the ++ and *= is because it is found in native Java. If NetRexx catches on with native Java programmers as an alternative and easier way to write Java code they are going to be expecting to be able to use the ++, +=, *=, etc. I don't consider using ++ and += as a C/C++ thing, I consider it a Java thing. In addition, since using long descriptive variables is an easy way of self documentation, having the ++ or += does have its added benefits as I have said in earlier notes. What do you all think? Brad Simonin (A Java and Rexx Fan) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
Re: Since NetRexx is Java.....
|
|
Brad,
> One of the Reasons I suggested using the ++ and *= is because it is > found in native Java. If NetRexx catches on with native Java programmers > as an alternative and easier way to write Java code they > are going to be expecting to be able to use the ++, +=, *=, etc. > I don't consider using ++ and += as a C/C++ thing, I consider it a Java thing. > > In addition, since using long descriptive variables is an easy way of self > documentation, having the ++ or += does have its added benefits as > I have said in earlier notes. > > What do you all think? I chose to use NetRexx because I didn't like Java syntax. Now you're proposing to make NetRexx more like Java? Why don't you just write your code in straight Java in you like that syntax so much? Robert Schiller ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
|
|
In reply to this post by Satguru Shivastava
>
> while I could find acceptable the introdution of a new keyword, like > 'itself' (or 'it', 'that', whatever) for example, as in: > > You_dont_want_a_name_longer_than_this = itself + 1 > > because it would show which is the object that the calculation is > based upon. > Both this and the "var + 1" syntax are much more intuitive, IMO, than "+=". However of the two, I would prefer Long_var_name = itself + 1 as above, simply because I'm used to seeing assignments in the form var = var + 1 With "var + 1", I think we run into the same kind of obscurity that ++ has. With "var + 1", my immediate thought is, "where does the result go?" Granted with adding one, it's fairly obvious, but a + b is not nearly as clear. My vote is for Max's suggestion. Cheers. laura -- Laura Tweedy :: [hidden email] Peacefully discovering the path I wish to take... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
|
|
In reply to this post by BRADLEY
>Hello fellow NetRexxers,
> >One of the Reasons I suggested using the ++ and *= is because it is >found in native Java. If NetRexx catches on with native Java programmers >as an alternative and easier way to write Java code they >are going to be expecting to be able to use the ++, +=, *=, etc. >I don't consider using ++ and += as a C/C++ thing, I consider it a Java thing. > I say, let it stop here. NetRexx is not clasicRexx, it's a language that allows programmers to develope Java code in an easy and effient manner. That said, if it can be done in Java, it should be able to be done in NetRexx... N+1... Great idea... -- /-------------------------------------\ | Jerry McBride ([hidden email]) | \-------------------------------------/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
Re: Since NetRexx is Java.....
|
|
[hidden email] wrote:
> > > One of the Reasons I suggested using the ++ and *= is because it is > found in native Java. > If NetRexx catches on with native Java programmers > as an alternative and easier way to write Java code they > are going to be expecting to be able to use the ++, +=, *=, etc. > In addition, since using long descriptive variables is an easy way of self > documentation, having the ++ or += does have its added benefits as > I have said in earlier notes. Yes. I agree with your 3 points. -- Tadashi Ohmura ( 大村 忠史 ) E-mail : [hidden email] 5-3-4 kaijin Funabashi City Chiba Pref. 273 JAPAN ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
Re: Since NetRexx is Java.....
|
|
In reply to this post by mcbrides
On 05 Dec 97 07:46:50 MST, [hidden email] wrote:
>Hello fellow NetRexxers, > >One of the Reasons I suggested using the ++ and *= is because it is >found in native Java. .... .... >In addition, since using long descriptive variables is an easy way of self >documentation, > >What do you all think? Since everyone else seemed to be adding their two cents worth here is mine from a slightly different point of view. First, let me explain that I do NOT consider myself a programmer. Yes I can do it, but it is not a love of mine. My focus (and the focus of my company) is on the networking side fo the world. ... this is where my personal love and interest in computing comes from. That being said, I have historically been a HUGE fan of REXX (the classic variety) because it allowed me to get my work done in an extremely straight - forward manner in language I understood and without requiring a compiler and development tools. REXX has saved my life on many occasions at a client due to this ease of use. The other thing that I have historically enjoyed about REXX has been its expandability. If there were functions that I needed (LAN Server Admin, SQL calls, dBASEIII file access, among a few) there was always a set of DLLs available to expand this functionality for me. I'm sure you are wondering where I am going with this.... Although I have never been able to find the time to dive into NetREXX the way that I would like to (it does have this nice fit with the networking side of computing which I so dearly enjoy :-)) I still have the clean environment where I can get the work at hand done when it is needed. And once again, if I need REXX to behave in a certain fashion, I usually have the tools available to make it happen. Here is what I would propose, and I guess that only Mike Cowlishaw would be able to comment on how feasible it would be to implement. I believe that the 'Java' items listed above should be included as an optional syntax for NetREXX.; and here are my reasons. 1) If they are added as an 'optional' syntax, then they do not effect me and my 'classic REXX' mental handicap (in that I am not well versed in C. C++ or JAVA). Plus my old code continues to run (unless of course I happen to have used things like '++' or '+=' or simialar ... not likely. 2) For those who are from the Java camp and are looking at this as an alternate programming environment, then they probably are used to thinking in terms of '++' and '+=' (of course I am not ...). Being able to use these and var+1 or other simialar common Java constructs allows them to not be handicapped by NetREXX by having to reinvent how they would convert from what they are used to in order to code within NetREXX. 3) In some cases, it might make the migtration from NetREXX to pure Java a little easier, since there would no translation and the Java elements would simply be passed on to the output code (Mike will have to answer that one.) NOTE: Please not that above I stated that the 'common' elements within Java should be brought over and supported as syntax. I don't for a minute think that the entire Java syntax should be supported ... if that wsa done, why not just write in Java (as someone else has already mentioned). If including a few of these very 'common' elements ( and I would not be a good condidate for deciding which should be used) is not a major internal change for NetREXX, and it does not REQUIRE that I use them, but it does help people upgrading from Java to NetREXX, then by all means, I would say go for it. Sorry, this ended up being a longer response that I at first expected. I hope it added value to the discussion. Ronald L. Gines President, CONNEXUS Inc. [hidden email] 314/771-6176 -------------------------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
|
|
Well, Jerry, I absolutely disagree.
N + 1 or N++ or +=N as a stand-alone is NOT intuitive -- unless one has spent a lengthy apprentice-ship in "C" -- and if so, why then do you look for the powerful productivity assistance of NetRexx --surely C or native Java rolls off your tongue and fingers? I have much respect for your contributions on NetRexx but I think it's REXX, NOT JAVA. As another commentator has so sensibly written -- if you want Java constructs, use Java. Many of us want NetRexx to reflect the clean, elegant, *understandable simplicity* of Rexx -- and NOT have it turn into a C-wannabee. The comment I DO agree with is "let's stop it" but -- please, let's stop it without adding needless unwanted complexity. Scott P ---------- From: Jerry McBride <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Cc: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Since NetRexx is Java..... Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 10:33 PM >Hello fellow NetRexxers, > >One of the Reasons I suggested using the ++ and *= is because it is >found in native Java. If NetRexx catches on with native Java programmers >as an alternative and easier way to write Java code they >are going to be expecting to be able to use the ++, +=, *=, etc. >I don't consider using ++ and += as a C/C++ thing, I consider it a Java thing. > I say, let it stop here. NetRexx is not clasicRexx, it's a language that allows programmers to develope Java code in an easy and effient manner. That said, if it can be done in Java, it should be able to be done in NetRexx... N+1... Great idea... -- /-------------------------------------\ | Jerry McBride ([hidden email]) | \-------------------------------------/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
|
|
>Well, Jerry, I absolutely disagree.
> Scott, I respect that fact. >N + 1 or N++ or +=N as a stand-alone is NOT intuitive -- unless one has >spent a lengthy apprentice-ship in "C" -- and if so, why then do you look >for the powerful productivity assistance of NetRexx --surely C or native >Java rolls off your tongue and fingers? > My post that triggered your response says it all. I beleive that if NetRexx is to appeal to the experienced or professional, then the same utility of Java should be supported in NetRexx. I'm not an advocate of any type or style of language syntax or programing style (I have noce). But at least this much should be done for NetRexx. >I have much respect for your contributions on NetRexx but I think it's >REXX, NOT JAVA. As another commentator has so sensibly written -- if you >want Java constructs, use Java. > I'd love to embrace the java language, however... and I'm about to reveal my cards here... I haven't the time or desire to learn it. NetRexx has allowed me to enter the Java arena without all the cumbersome aspects of working in Java. However, I still want the ability to take full advantage of the Java language right down to the syntax if possible... in NetRexx. >Many of us want NetRexx to reflect the clean, elegant, *understandable >simplicity* of Rexx -- and NOT have it turn into a C-wannabee. > >The comment I DO agree with is "let's stop it" but -- please, let's stop it >without adding needless unwanted complexity. > >Scott P As I said above. I respect your point of view, however we do not agree. Thanks for the dialog, it's refreshing to compare points of view with others. >---------- >From: Jerry McBride <[hidden email]> >To: [hidden email] >Cc: [hidden email] >Subject: Re: Since NetRexx is Java..... >Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 10:33 PM > >>Hello fellow NetRexxers, >> >>One of the Reasons I suggested using the ++ and *= is because it is >>found in native Java. If NetRexx catches on with native Java programmers >>as an alternative and easier way to write Java code they >>are going to be expecting to be able to use the ++, +=, *=, etc. >>I don't consider using ++ and += as a C/C++ thing, I consider it a Java >thing. >> > >I say, let it stop here. NetRexx is not clasicRexx, it's a language that >allows >programmers to develope Java code in an easy and effient manner. That said, >if >it can be done in Java, it should be able to be done in NetRexx... > >N+1... Great idea... >-- > -- /-------------------------------------\ | Jerry McBride ([hidden email]) | \-------------------------------------/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
Re: Since NetRexx is Java.....
|
|
In reply to this post by Scott Pollard
Scott,
> The comment I DO agree with is "let's stop it" but -- please, let's stop it > without adding needless unwanted complexity. I agree. This discussion is way out of hand. I wonder if those that are proposing the changes would care to rewrite my broken code and everyone else's for that matter. I know, someone will come along and say let's have it both ways. Great, then we'll have useless overhead and junky syntax in NetRexx. Robert Schiller ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
Re: Since NetRexx is Java.....
|
|
In reply to this post by Ronald L. Gines
Lots of people have said lots of stuff about ++ etc.
I'd like to think that this is a minor issue for Java support. Here's two high on my list of things to at least express in NetRexx, which are currently impossible: 1 - Inner classes (as opposed to) 2 - Anonymous inner classes I think Mike has (2) covered with the adapter keyword. (1) Hasn't yet come up, but will probably become more necessary as people take advangtage of Java in 3rd party add-ons. By the way, I now have a reasonable preview-release of a VisualNetRexx prototype. If anyone would like a look at it, please let me know. If there are enough people, I'll make it public. Major point: It's nowhere near code or functionality complete at this point, but the ideas are there. I'm looking for feedback/direction/partners etc... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
Re: Since NetRexx is Java.....
|
|
In reply to this post by mcbrides
Jerry McBride wrote:
> However, I still want the ability to take full advantage of the Java language > right down to the syntax if possible... in NetRexx. Hmmm...if you really want that, you want Java - since syntax is really what makes NetRexx a different language. Why not write the java in separate files and compile in with the NetRexx...You can still use netRexx objects (e.g. Rexx) from Java. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
Re: Since NetRexx is Java.....
|
|
In reply to this post by BRADLEY
dlon,
> I'd like to think that this is a minor issue for Java support. It should be a non-issue. The point raised is ridiculous. > If anyone would like a look at it, please let me know. Yes, I'd be very interested. Robert Schiller ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to [hidden email] with the following message in the body of the note unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address> |
«
Return to ibm-netrexx
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |