On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:12 AM, David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/10/2017 9:47 PM, Walt Farrell wrote: > >> Did we somehow arrive at a generalized requirement to be able to access >>> particular TSO/ISPF features from*other* programming languages that are >>> not REXX, in a discussion about JITs, because of the functional utility >>> some z/OS system programmers desire to use other programming languages >>> besides REXX for scripts in TSO/ISPF? >>> >> I think we arrived at this idea because someone suggested it would be >> nice if the open-sourced JIT technology that started this thread could be >> applied to REXX. Then someone else said we don't really need that, because >> NetREXX fulfills the desire to have REXX code that can be JITted. But then >> someone else pointed out that NetREXX can't do all the same kinds of things >> that REXX can, especially with respect to TSO and ISPF integration. >> >> Therefore, as NetREXX can't substitute for REXX, we still have the desire >> (if, perhaps, not the need) for a true classic REXX that can make use of >> the JIT technology. >> > > Best post in this thread! We want a JIT for classic REXX so it can run at > speeds similar to compiled languages. > > I'd vote "for" that. Of course, the standard IBM response will be given: "How much are you willing to pay us to do that?" and "What do you want us to _not_ do in order to free up the resources to re-architect and rewrite classic z/OS TSO REXX from ??? into C++ and use a virtual machine in order to be able to use the JIT?" -- I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
