netrexx site
Locked
123
123
 
|
On 6/10/2011 12:34 PM, René Jansen wrote:
> Anyway I put in Fernando's sentence - cannot argue with its merit. > Agreed. I was just looking at the home page, and I think (in time!) it needs a hyper link from the "human centric" phrase to a sub-page that goes into more detail on exactly what that means. For this, I would plagiarize MFC ruthlessly ... no one has ever explained it better. [Okay, I wouldn't plagiarize him, I would use his words verbatim, and give him all the credit.] _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert L Hamilton
Bob,
BTW, NetRexx is not a JVM language: it is a translator whose target language is Java source code. Of course, the Java compiler then produces JVM code. The crucial point is that this guarantees that NetRexx classes are totally compatible with Java classes. George On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Robert Hamilton <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
|
On 10 June 2011 11:21, George Hovey <[hidden email]> wrote: Bob, Good point and one that should be stressed. NetRexx's ability to generate Java source is a huge benefit when building complex projects as you can mix and match compilation units and just take the NetRexx generated source and merge it into the bigger "Java only" suite thus allowing developers to work in the environment they're most comfortable in. The day NetRexx stops doing this and goes directly to bytecode is the day I stop using NetRexx. A. -- Can't tweet, won't tweet! _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
Alan
-- Needs more cowbell. |
|
In reply to this post by Robert L Hamilton
Hello Robert,
I did research that a while ago! Simple answer: *Any operating system* where Java runs :-) This includes Windows (all versions), Linux (all versions), etc, etc, and, surplisingly anything having a JVM fro z/OS down to a Handy (as Kermit Kiser has proven) It is *the only* ENVIRONMENT where you do have *NOT* to RE-Compile your developments newly for every PLATFORM. Once you do have your JAR of classes it does run from the mainframe down to the Handy. That's why I'm loving the Java JVM Desing, and even more the NetRexx Language, which is even readable for *OLD* PL/I, COBOL, RPG, NATURAL, etc programmers, as well as for JAVA Experts. And that is, as I see it, the *BIG Benefit* of NetRexx. 1.) One source code 2.) RUN's (unchanged) *on every platform which has a JVM installed. 3.) WITHOUT any needed RECOMPILATION (which sorry, ooRexx does deserve) 4.) The varios JUST in TIME Compilers (called JIT's) do compile the Java BYTE CODE to the proper inernal code of the proper machine (at first invocation), and then, after this, you do (as my personal tests did show) have a performance like any/all specifically written C, C#; C++, of whatever Source Language Program... Greetings from Vienna, Thomas. ======================================================= Thomas . os Am 10.06.2011 19:52, schrieb Robert Hamilton:
--
Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tom Maynard
<snip>
>> Also, it suggests more compatibility with Rexx than there actually is > Really? I don't read it that way. "The newest implementation" > doesn't necessarily convey "backward compatible" -- things rarely are > these days. You could say "Newest version" or even simply "Current > implementation" ("Modern implementation?" ... "Modern revision?" ... > or, heck, even "JVM implementation"). You could drive yourself crazy > over just a few words. Oh! "Modern implementation of one of the > earliest scripting languages, with revisions to run on the JVM." (Or, > "to suit the JVM" or "to accommodate the JVM environment" -- you get > the idea(s).) Rexx2nrx *IS* backwards compatible! Thomas. > > My current version: "A modern implementation of one of the earliest > scripting languages, with revisions to suit the JVM environment." > > >> Thanks for thinking with us here; I certainly will use your sentence >> some place on the website. >> > You asked, I thought. Now the seed is planted, I'll continue to gnaw > on this like an old dog with a new bone. > > Tom. > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ > > -- Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by alansam
erm - then, when I were you, I would not use the Netrexx interpreted mode, because 'it stops just short of' doing that - there are some bytecodes emitted though ;-)
René. On Jun 10, 2011, at 8:39 PM, Alan Sampson wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by rvjansen
And the generated java code is largely unsuitable for humans. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by rvjansen
On 10 June 2011 12:05, René Jansen <[hidden email]> wrote: --
But it still leaves me with the ability to generate Java source at any time. "Quick and dirty" can be useful just as long as I can choose to go back and generate Java source that reproduces valid class files. A. Can't tweet, won't tweet! _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
Alan
-- Needs more cowbell. |
|
|
In reply to this post by measel
On 10 June 2011 12:19, Measel, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote:
With the appropriate formatting options it's readable enough to make it understandable and if you've marked up your source code with the appropriate tags it can be pushed through Javadoc to get decent API documentation too. A -- Can't tweet, won't tweet! _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
Alan
-- Needs more cowbell. |
|
|
In reply to this post by rvjansen
There might be Times (in the future) where we might be able to
directly emit
Java Byte code. No promise, just a guess :-) Thomas. ========================================================= Am 10.06.2011 21:05, schrieb René Jansen: erm - then, when I were you, I would not use the Netrexx interpreted mode, because 'it stops just short of' doing that - there are some bytecodes emitted though ;-) --
Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by alansam
Alan,
>>The day NetRexx stops doing this and goes directly to bytecode is the day I stop using NetRexx. Hear, hear! I have argued, no doubt ad nauseam, that compatibility with Java at the class level should be an essential claim of NetRexx, and be prominently asserted at the web site. This would signal that Java and NetRexx development can be safely mixed and, IMO, act as a powerful attractant to Java programmers. There has been some talk in this forum of emitting byte code. Doing so would forever break that compact. George On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Alan Sampson <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by rvjansen
I had fairly good success with "the newest member of the Rexx family
of languages". It establishes the relationship, which may or may not be derivative, but close enough to see the "family resemblance". -Chip- On 6/10/11 17:34 René Jansen said: > The 'newest' part is not bad, if we follow Fernando's reasoning, but 'now available' is some 15 years off the mark - part of the problem here is my effort to convey that, at least in my opinion, both things were done right the first time, and a long time ago - while being firsts. Also, it suggests more compatibility with Rexx than there actually is - remember some of the opinions voiced on this list, that NetRexx stands on its own and has nothing to do with Rexx(LA)? While I disagree with that, I do not want to stoke the discussion. Thanks for thinking with us here; I certainly will use your sentence some place on the website. > > Anyway I put in Fernando's sentence - cannot argue with its merit. > > René. > > On Jun 10, 2011, at 6:56 PM, Tom Maynard wrote: > >> On 6/10/2011 11:18 AM, René Jansen wrote: >>> About 'the granddaddy'...Let us all have a think on the correct way to express this point. >>> >> How about "the newest implementation of one of the earliest scripting languages, now available for the JVM" -- or words to that effect? >> >> 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/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by measel
Am 10.06.2011 21:19, schrieb Measel, Mike:
Hello Mike, I'm working here on PP: The program Porting Machine. PP does accept classic interpreted Rexx, classic Compiled Rexx, open Object Rexx, PL/I, COBOL, and soon Natural (Software AG), and later Java and C, C#, C++ , BASIC, etc as the *source language* It does have a totally *other* architecture than any other sompiler's I do know, however. But I still *do* think, this architecture is intelligent, by the way. However, as I personally did invest approximately 8 man-years to develop DB-123 and PP, I'm currently not in the stage to make it OPEN source, as I am nearly bankrupt ... But as I did survive 64 years in the IT-Branche now, and one of my biggest asset's is that I can learn very quick, and do know a *lot* of computer languages (by personal professional history), this might be an advantage as well, hopefully. My current position is: 1.) Let us all try to make the Open source NetRexx release a success. 2.) Let us try, at REXXLA, to make an analysis, who does still use classic Rexx, and ooRexx. 3.) ... -- your choice. Nevertheless, Mark, it might be a good testcase (for me) to run ooDialog thru my recent Parser's. Best greetings from Vienna, Thomas. _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
But this should be an option of the respective NetRexx compiler, IMHO. Thomas. ======================================================== Am 10.06.2011 22:17, schrieb George Hovey: Alan, --
Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Aviatrexx
Does ANYBODY on this group (or REXXLA) hink *or* believe that an ooRexx
to NetRexx* Translator* would be useful for all those Rexx DIALECTS (as I'm calling them) ? <grin> Thomas. =========================================================== Am 10.06.2011 22:22, schrieb Chip Davis: > I had fairly good success with "the newest member of the Rexx family > of languages". It establishes the relationship, which may or may not > be derivative, but close enough to see the "family resemblance". > > -Chip- > > On 6/10/11 17:34 René Jansen said: >> The 'newest' part is not bad, if we follow Fernando's reasoning, but >> 'now available' is some 15 years off the mark - part of the problem >> here is my effort to convey that, at least in my opinion, both things >> were done right the first time, and a long time ago - while being >> firsts. Also, it suggests more compatibility with Rexx than there >> actually is - remember some of the opinions voiced on this list, that >> NetRexx stands on its own and has nothing to do with Rexx(LA)? While >> I disagree with that, I do not want to stoke the discussion. Thanks >> for thinking with us here; I certainly will use your sentence some >> place on the website. >> >> Anyway I put in Fernando's sentence - cannot argue with its merit. >> René. >> >> On Jun 10, 2011, at 6:56 PM, Tom Maynard wrote: >> >>> On 6/10/2011 11:18 AM, René Jansen wrote: >>>> About 'the granddaddy'...Let us all have a think on the correct way >>>> to express this point. >>>> >>> How about "the newest implementation of one of the earliest >>> scripting languages, now available for the JVM" -- or words to >>> that effect? >>> >>> 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/ > > -- Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by ThSITC
On 10 June 2011 13:40, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't believe that's what George is saying and as far as I understand you can generate byte code that could never be generated by the javac compiler if you choose to. Doing so would cause your class files to be incompatible with many libraries. The simplest way to ensure that you avoid this is to invoke the javac compiler as part of the generation phase as is being done now. Mike Cowlishaw is a smart cookie and had many forward-thinking ideas. This is just an example of one of them. A. -- Can't tweet, won't tweet! _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
Alan
-- Needs more cowbell. |
Re: Java Byte Code (was netrexx site)
|
|
In reply to this post by ThSITC
Anyway, the advantages of producing bytecode that I see are that one could do NetRexx programming on a computer with the JRE and not have to require the JDK; also some ANT build files might be simplified. However, the important advantage of producing Java source code is to allow Java and NetRexx programmers to work together more easily. Granted, the two output forms are not mutually exclusive and the bytecode could easily be tested for differences. -- Kermit On 6/10/2011 1:40 PM, Thomas Schneider wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by alansam
Hi Alan,
at the MINUTE I do totally agree. For your info: what I'm currently doing (with PP) is: I'm translating classic Rexx, IBM Compiled Rexx, IBM Object Rexx, Open Object Rexx, COBOL I, COBOL II, PL/I, and, end of 2011, NATURAL to my own *internal code*, designed back 1999, when I've been the Project Leader of an Y2K Transition for COBOL programs. The only advantage I do personally have is: 1.) I do personally know a lot of computer languages (and also natural languages) 2.) I do have a *concept* 3.) I'm never giving up :-( Having said that, I will do my personal best to support Rene *immediately* with a (new) version of my Rexx2Nrx run-time pacckage, to be published on org.netrexx.runtime.compatibility as Rene suggested in June, 2011. I then, stepwise, will, in accordance and co-operation with Rene, forward a) Rexx2Nrx release 6.00 (formely called ReyC) b) abandon my ReyC compiler project on KENAI c) discuss with this community my further thoughts for the NetRexx Language. ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Personally, I think there are a couple of issues open to be resolved in NetRexx version 3.0 as soon as possible: a) support for ValueSets, denoted by myanswer={YES,NO} Verbs={IF,THEN,ELSE IF,ELSE,DO,LOOP,...,SAY} b) support for ValueRanges, e.g. letter={A-Z, a-z} digit={0-9} c) support for ValueLists, e.g.: IndentiierCharacter1={letter, digit, '$_'} etc, etc This would give the BRACE a meaningful meaning in the language, IMHO. I *do have* a lot of ideas on language enhancements, but do have NO INTENT to discuss it at this minute, as I'm working on an experimental Implementation (ReyC, sorry to mention it again :-() ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Thanks for your patience. Thomas. Am 10.06.2011 22:53, schrieb Alan Sampson:
--
Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Kermit Kiser
Hello Kermit,
thanks for your comment. My personal opinion was and is: when desired at all, this has to be a NEW OPTION of the respective NetRexx compiler, e.g.: -bytecode -- emit bytecode ... and I also do think that Mike (are you there?) did have his GOOD reasons why he had not followed these was when he did *deliver* NetRexxC. Anyway, my current thinking is: What we do *instantly need* in NetRexx 3.00 is: a) support for the IBM COLLECTIONS FRAMEWORK in LOOPs Full Stop. Thomas. ========================================================= Am 10.06.2011 23:11, schrieb Kermit Kiser:
--
Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.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 |
Re: Java Byte Code (was netrexx site)
|
|
In reply to this post by alansam
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 17:53, Alan Sampson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The simplest way to ensure that you avoid this is to invoke the javac > compiler as part of the generation phase as is being done now. Mike > Cowlishaw is a smart cookie and had many forward-thinking ideas. This is > just an example of one of them. I agree. Keep it as it is. -1 to the idea. FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
«
Return to ibm-netrexx
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |