Why not compile lua to support utf8? Your unrelenting love of REXX worries me. it’s the perfect example of personal preference over a functional requirement which is unprofessional and a red flag.
> On 8 Jan 2022, at 14:57, René Jansen <rene.vincent.jan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I looked at your list and I am happy to see that these include the things > you find important. JS is undeniably a big factor but “the good parts” is a > thin booklet. As is groovy - slow and nevery had any appeal to me, just looks > messy. I quite like Ruby as an idea but slow as molasses. > > Today I looked at Lua, and although quite elegant, small and snappy, I am > really disappointed that this is one of those languages that gives you wrong > answers for numeric problems and having unicode support in a utf8 library > that is different from the string functions - that is just funny. I am not > implying that all Rexx implementations shine in this regard, but that is just > neglect. NetRexx does, however, as it does in unlimited decimal precision > arithmetic. > > Of course NetRexx can use the Java stream API for functional programming. > That remark is just as odd as ‘it only has one type’. The fact that it is > from 1995 and can use features that only appeared in Java 8 - personally I > find that telling about the quality of the design. But I am not telling you > that you need to like it - like the way we are told that we now need to like > Python more than Rexx, while it cannot do what we need to do - for all the > wrong reasons. > > Looking at your list of requirements I think Scheme had it quite covered. > Some of them are gimmicky and some seem useful. None of them address the core > qualities of the mainframe, which are Channels, packed decimal, DB2, CICS and > COBOL (as long as you forbid dynamic memory). > > I think the discussion has strayed too much from what sparked it, which is a > hitpiece with 8 untruths about Python and Rexx. Yes we like all languages to > be available, and well maintained on z/OS. Please provide interfaces and > precompilers for the main infrastructure. It is remarkably odd that IBM does > not invest in the things that made the platform what it is, but it is not my > problem. If the message is that the mainframe now can run the same software > as the Raspberry Pi or your generic AWS instance, so be it. > > I think you will find that other people are emotionally attached to their > tools and programming languages, it is a human thing. Also, I found that not > all people can easily switch between a large number of ever-changing > programming languages; which is meant as a compliment to you; but > nevertheless very true. > > So I thank you all for a very interesting discussion. > > Best regards, > > René. > >> On 7 Jan 2022, at 20:53, David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I could go on. Even Java supports functional programming since Java 1.8 and >> which introduced the streams API. It's unusual to see and old school loop in >> modern Java code. Even C++ has lambda's. >> >> I missed "closures" on my list which code hand in hand with "functions as >> first class objects". Very powerful, for example in Kotlin you can easily >> create type safe builders (DSLs) >> https://kotlinlang.org/docs/type-safe-builders.html. >> That's why I have absolutely no interest in NetRexx. I have far better >> options on the JVM. I don't get emotionally attached to programming >> languages. If a better one becomes available I will quite happily switch as >> I have done > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
