Actually, C was deigned to compile on a PDP-7; despite being used frequently for the purpose, it's really not particularly suited for writing operating systems. But, of course, even Fortran can, and has, be used for the purpose if you're perverse enough.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 9:38 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Unreadable code (Was: Concurrent Server Task Dispatch issue multitasking issue) I wasn't arguing I was just stating the fact that REXX is nothing like C. To state the bloody obvious it's a scripting language and C was designed to write operating systems. They have different design goals and both have their strengths and weaknesses. On 11/01/2019 8:56 pm, scott Ford wrote: > You can argue anything is or isn’t , I think what matters is ease of usage > , platform interchangeability , I.E., Linux and windows for Oorexx. > The advent of rexx, I started on VM/SP 3 , I think, was a huge improvement > over the old VM clist language. The old clist to me being more > clunky . Rexx was easy to learn and have up and running . This was a g pus > at least for me. > > The PL/1 likeness is the “ if then do” , I wrote a bunch of PL/1 on > OS/VS2/HASP, back to n the dark ages. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:18 PM David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11/01/2019 10:27 am, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >>> Semicolons, yes, but: >>> do <=> { >>> end <=> } >>> switch <=> SELECT >>> ... >>> I think Rexx got much of its lexical flavor from PL/I. But that's easy >> for >>> me to say becase I don't know PL/I. >> From Wiki "Rexx was also intended by its creator to be a simplified and >> easier to learn version of the PL/I >> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/140VKzEWVR9btwxy-t5ao75tQvXI7HOOImLD_BljTMZawmuPRYZ79xVL4aQDFtwZFlqUYIk3aEZhQwfFkXKDHhuTY5GkOPoB9mVxF9uoKjkp1KTrVXYt-ZHwIeYkGEX2qQAyyJ7t5KrObPqzGRGNYLI1HYWwZ3859pUdV8QCmSwZLeEDNj696ELw4A3mjrGVr6jeXyu6cpX9LnuwsFYHRHvODEsoGVwURlHY8PCKaGz6m_M_pd76uacojs-aaeRJNUdQeUXZyqru-u_BXWBT4naq_fT2gKS3ZaD5Cx2HKfVa5UVw8H2PlX8hByYb21VZ7e9yFStKcVVgHFkY0nShNw29DdElNvVFo7bIizPPljXPuibqbL6H6zojrDBzHA2eD/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPL%2FI> >> programming language" >> >> I agree with Steve. There is very little similarity between REXX and C. >> A case in point would be short circuit evaluation which is fundamental >> to C and >> sadly lacking in REXX. There are some similarities between a language >> like JavaScript and C because of the lineage of most curly bracket >> languages. >> >> >>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 6:48 PM Steve Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>> REXX is lot like C? I can't think of anything they have in common >> beyond >>>>> the minimum basics of any procedural language. >>> Bless Rexx for making ';' and newline very nearly interchangeable, in >> contrast >>> to POSIX Shell script, where they aren't. >>> >>> -- gil >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
