Re: "execs" or "scripts"

In <0c4610fa-8e37-401f-8833-7fc935672...@yahoo.com>, on 08/29/2012 at 02:19 PM, Scott Ford said: >I love perl and even ruby, but I am in a batch z/os environment >writing for customers, While it is backlevel, there is a Perl for z/OS. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

Shmuel, I love perl and even ruby, but I am in a batch z/os environment writing for customers, well that's a horse of a different color as they say.. Scott ford www.identityforge.com On Aug 28, 2012, at 6:43 PM, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" wrote: > In <584b9998-992d-4fab-9b21-268ad144d...@yah

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

In <584b9998-992d-4fab-9b21-268ad144d...@yahoo.com>, on 08/28/2012 at 11:56 AM, Scott Ford said: >Parsing for me is not an issue. I understand it's not 'NIX' like, >but if you understand the language you craft your programs or >scripts to perform what you want. When I have a screwdriver in

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

In <0088725960804398.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on 08/28/2012 at 09:42 AM, Paul Gilmartin said: >How would you employ VALUE() to simplify this? Whoops! Substitution of the tail does occur. That leaves OOREXX, which hasn't ben ported :-( -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysPr

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

This is a novel and not, I think, a very useful definition of context-sensitive; but à chacun son goût. The useful practical distinction is that between languages, like C and COBOL, that employ reserved words and languages, like PL/I, that do not. Academic computer scientists like reserved words,

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:21:14 -0400, John Gilmore wrote: >Other people's parsing machinery is, in my experience, usable only for >context-free 'languages'; and since I devise and use only >context-sensitive--yes, PL/I-like--languages, I have found that I must >build my own parsing machinery; and th

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

Other people's parsing machinery is, in my experience, usable only for context-free 'languages'; and since I devise and use only context-sensitive--yes, PL/I-like--languages, I have found that I must build my own parsing machinery; and this is easy enough to do using REXX. --jg --

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

Shmuel, Parsing for me is not an issue. I understand it's not 'NIX' like, but if you understand the language you craft your programs or scripts to perform what you want. After using Rexx since VM/SP up through Object Rexx, it's ain't rocket science to me . Buts that's my understanding and my ap

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:29:05 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > >>But the bare word handling is treacherous, > >Indeed; there is a contingent that advocate always having NOVALUE >active. ... > That would be me. Restoring your snippage: >>It would be precious if Rexx supported expressions in

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

In <0717843179209840.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on 08/27/2012 at 09:03 PM, Paul Gilmartin said: >But the bare word handling is treacherous, Indeed; there is a contingent that advocate always having NOVALUE active. But I find that the usefulness is enough to justify the risk. >I

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 20:55:12 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > >The way REXX handles bare words and implicit concatenation makes it >much more concise and much more readable for scripting. OTOH, it's >parsing facilities are minimal. > Absolutely true about implicit concatenation (and POSIX

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

Sure is Scott ford www.identityforge.com On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:56 PM, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" wrote: > In , on 08/27/2012 > at 02:02 PM, Scott Ford said: > >> To be honest, the 'if then do' logic is very PL/1 like > > Sure, as is the select statement. But exiting from loops is very

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

In , on 08/27/2012 at 02:02 PM, Scott Ford said: >To be honest, the 'if then do' logic is very PL/1 like Sure, as is the select statement. But exiting from loops is very different. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2 We don't ca

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

In , on 08/27/2012 at 01:53 PM, Kirk Wolf said: >I like REXX, but I don't find the language itself to be nearly as >nice as scripting languages like Python and even EMCAScript (AKA >Javascript). The way REXX handles bare words and implicit concatenation makes it much more concise and much mor

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

Python would have my vote also, with a nice API to z/OS functions Scott ford www.identityforge.com On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Kirk Wolf wrote: > OK, get your knives and arrows handy... > > I like REXX, but I don't find the language itself to be nearly as nice as > scripting languages lik

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

On Aug 27, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Kirk Wolf wrote: > Granted, REXX has fantastic z/OS integration (functions, host command > environments, etc), but it would be very interesting to see a modern Python > or Javascript port for z/OS that implemented a REXX-compatible native > interface to functions, HCE

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

OK, get your knives and arrows handy... I like REXX, but I don't find the language itself to be nearly as nice as scripting languages like Python and even EMCAScript (AKA Javascript). (Javascript the language, NOT the browser DOM context where it is most often used, which is horrible ).Tcl is

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

Shmuel, To be honest, the 'if then do' logic is very PL/1 like Scott ford www.identityforge.com On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:40 AM, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" wrote: > In > <58fc7f986fcb804286e23b59decf420f65c0b...@nwt-s-mbx1.rocketsoftware.com>, > on 08/27/2012 > at 11:33 AM, Bob Shannon said: >

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

In <58fc7f986fcb804286e23b59decf420f65c0b...@nwt-s-mbx1.rocketsoftware.com>, on 08/27/2012 at 11:33 AM, Bob Shannon said: >CLIST stands for "Command List" i.e., a means to string a series >of TSO commands together. It was rudimentary. Although some >improvements have been added since its inc

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

In , on 08/26/2012 at 02:55 PM, John Gilmore said: >REXX can also be viewed--Its inventor so views it--as a PL/I dialect. REXX is structurally very different from PL/I, and PL/I habbits will get you into trouble. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:33:01 +, Bob Shannon wrote: > >CLIST stands for "Command List" i.e., a means to string a series of TSO >commands together. It was rudimentary. Although some improvements have been >added since its inception, it's no Rexx. > Both CLIST and CMS EXEC, but not EXEC 2 nor R

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

My thoughts exactly. Every language has advantages and disadvantages and depends on you own skill level Scott ford www.identityforge.com On Aug 27, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Binyamin Dissen wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:33:01 + Bob Shannon > wrote: > > :>>Both CMS and TSO have an EXEC command.

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:33:01 + Bob Shannon wrote: :>>Both CMS and TSO have an EXEC command. Given that TSO does *not* have a CLIST >command :>CLIST stands for "Command List" i.e., a means to string a series of TSO commands together. It was rudimentary. Although some improvements have been

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

>Both CMS and TSO have an EXEC command. Given that TSO does *not* have a CLIST >>command CLIST stands for "Command List" i.e., a means to string a series of TSO commands together. It was rudimentary. Although some improvements have been added since its inception, it's no Rexx. Bob Shannon Rock

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

John, Ty I didn't realize REXX, was a PL/1 dialect. Very interesting I wrote PL/1 under OS/VS2 many many moons ago, in the 70s. I hadnt heard of a SLPL..so I find this also interesting..and would like to know more. Scott ford www.identityforge.com On Aug 26, 2012, at 2:55 PM, John Gilmore wr

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

REXX is a statement-level procedural language (SLPL). I qualify it in this way because the term 'language' properly embraces a great many usefully distinguished things. The title of one of the great classics of 20th-century biology is von Frisch, Karl. Tanzensprache und Orientierung der Bienen.

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

I feel it's a language. Since it not only is interpreted but compiled. The difference for me is language functions and calls. The difference between exec or exec2 and rexx is pretty major to me. A lot of differences. I learned rexx in 1984 .but I feel each language has advantages and disadv

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

In <5159fdfc-4063-4acb-969a-95c03fc7d...@yahoo.com>, on 08/25/2012 at 12:41 AM, Scott Ford said: >They consider REXX a language Given that substantial applications have been written in REXX, why would you not consider it to be a programming language? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysPro

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

In <8e52b561-1103-4189-b592-52719bae5...@yahoo.com>, on 08/24/2012 at 08:56 PM, Scott Ford said: >Maybe the usage of execs or rexx in writing or speaking might be >based on whether you learned iron VM or z/OS. Both CMS and TSO have an EXEC command. Given that TSO does *not* have a CLIST comma

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

-- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] >> On Behalf Of John Gilmore >> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 10:49 AM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> Subject: Re: "execs" or "scripts" >> >> Your bad it may be, but I cann

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

John, Maybe the usage of execs or rexx in writing or speaking might be based on whether you learned iron VM or z/OS. I learned my on VM. So I can only give you my perspective. Scott ford www.identityforge.com On Aug 24, 2012, at 12:15 PM, John Gilmore wrote: > Bob, > > I'm not sure I agree.

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

Phil, Worked VM since SP1, they were always execs to me. Scripts makes me think Nix, unix . Scott ford www.identityforge.com On Aug 24, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Phil Smith wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Bob Shannon > wrote: >> I prefer "exec" myself, but I believe a true "exec" should

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

Behalf Of John Gilmore > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 10:49 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: "execs" or "scripts" > > Your bad it may be, but I cannot refrain from noting that, while I too > prefer 'script' to 'exec', even

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Bob Shannon wrote: >I prefer "exec" myself, but I believe a true "exec" should have been written >in EXEC or EXEC 2 language, not Rexx. I find "a Rexx" to be awkward, but I'm >not convinced that it's incorrect. Right. "A Rexx" is actually analogous to "An EXEC

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

Bob, I'm not sure I agree. My problem is that your view sanctions, implicltly encourages, usages like 'an Assembler' for an assembly-language program or 'a COBOL' for a COBOL program. The distinction between the entity, routine or table, and the language in which it is written is valuable, worth

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

I prefer "exec" myself, but I believe a true "exec" should have been written in EXEC or EXEC 2 language, not Rexx. I find "a Rexx" to be awkward, but I'm not convinced that it's incorrect. Bob Shannon Rocket Software -- For IBM

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

Your bad it may be, but I cannot refrain from noting that, while I too prefer 'script' to 'exec', even 'exec' is better than talking/writing about 'a REXX' or REXXs'; and this subliterate usage appears to be spreading: we have far too much of it on IBM-MAIN. --jg On 8/24/12, Anne & Lynn Wheeler

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

zedgarhoo...@gmail.com (zMan) writes: > Relevance? my bad, thread in comp.lang.rexx that went to wrong place -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / arch

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

Relevance? On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > re: > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#8 "execs" or "scripts" > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#9 "execs" or "scripts" > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/20

Re: "execs" or "scripts"

re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#8 "execs" or "scripts" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#9 "execs" or "scripts" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#15 "execs" or "scripts" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#20 &qu