Owe something to LISP? Not even close, IMHO. LISP has often been (correctly) described as parenthesis h**l. I believe its adherents refer to it as a "functional" language (i.e., every frellin' thing you do is a function, requiring arguments in parentheses!).
Rexx is *so* much nicer than LISP... IMHO of course. But to answer your first question, I don't see the resemblance. SNOBOL's "fail/succeed" model of procedural control is *so* different from Rexx, and the Rexx PARSE is *so* weak compared to SNOBOL's pattern-matching capabilities, that I couldn't in good conscience call them close at all. Were the *ideas* in SNOBOL a grandfather of some of the *ideas* in Rexx? I could see that argument being made, and I might not disagree with it. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 3:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Old product tapes Am I the only person who finds Rexx at least a little reminiscent of SNOBOL? I never worked with LISP; wouldn't recognize it if I saw it. Perhaps they both owe something to LISP? Charles _ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
