Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Dialects: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Dialects (view source)

Revision as of 22:08, 15 August 2012

13,633 bytes added , 11 years ago

m

→‎REXX and o-o REXXes: corrected a misspelling. -- ~~~~

Anonymous user

rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger

Revision as of 11:20, 9 July 2012 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger (removed a comment requesting clarification for which REXX was being referred to. -- ~~~~) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 22:08, 15 August 2012 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger m (→‎REXX and o-o REXXes: corrected a misspelling. -- ~~~~)
(18 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 16: : I'm going to read into the proposal that navigation is really the issue and not pure numbers. If we worry about pure numbers, we have about 600 tasks and 450 languages which results in a pretty big matrix. Not that we will ever see that as other than a sparse-ish matrix. When that happens we will need to solve that problem. Until then I have to fall back onto YAGNI. I suggest we put some practical examples and suggestions/ideas here. Then when a community starts to have a problem they have a place to come for ideas. --[[User:Dgamey\|Dgamey]] 15:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :::: YAGNI: "You ain't gonna need it" --- or --- "You aren't gonna need it". [[wp:You ain't gonna need it\|{Wikipedia link: YAGNI}]] -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] 05:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC) ==Examples== === Icon and Unicon === Line 39 ⟶ 42: === REXX, ooRexx, and others === ~~<pre>~~ Nowadays there are many implementations of Rexx. Line 50 ⟶ 53: Some 'features' of the original Rexx were removed '''in this grandchild (ooRexx)''' :- Use of @#$¢ as or in symbols :- a= as a short form ofor a=''"" :- Multi-line strings (extending a string over line boundaries') :- Bifs: externals, find, index, justify, linesize ~~- stream I/O (present in CMS but only optional on TSO (not on 'mine')~~ :- the Upper instruction ~~(on TSO I have to use EXECIO)~~ :- /= and /== as alternatives to \= or \== (see characters below) ~~- Bifs: externals, find, index, justify, linesize~~ ~~- the Upper instruction~~ Stream I/O is only optional on TSO (not on 'mine') ~~- /= and /== as alternatives to \= or \== (see characters below)~~ (I have to use EXECIO) Other features were introduced '''with the ANSII standard''' created by a committee comprising Rexx implementers from IBM (notably the original author, Mike Cowlishaw) and from elsewhere: :- Date and Time conversion :- Parse Caseless :- Address With (not available in ooRexx) :- Bifs: changestr, countstr, qualify A feature introduced with ooRexx (and Regina unless you opt out, see below): :- -- as line comment (instead of /* ... /) ~~Regina 3.4 introduced the single-line comment feature,~~ ~~Regina 3.5 wasn't configurable concerning single-line comments,~~ ~~and it wasn't until~~ ~~Regina 3.6 that allowed the noSingle_line_comments~~ ~~environmental variable. --- Gerard Schildberger~~ Avoiding all of the language elements mentioned above makes a program portable across all Rexxes (including the two ~~Rexxes~~ I am using and therefore interested in). Using additional features introduced with other implementations (notably directives in ooRexx) will also prohibit program porting. Characters: :Originally ¬ was ~~defines~~defined as not-character and /= was accepted for not equal. :This was later changed to the backslash on PCs and ^ on the host. :On my German TSO I cannot use \| and \ due to code page ~~differences~~diff:erences. :My Rexx sources on TSO use therefore ! and ^, respectively. :(I avoid the ^ by using lt-gt instead of ^=) ::For a Brief History of Rexx see :: http://www.speleotrove.com/rexxhist/rexxhistory.html ::For a rather complete list of Rexx implementations see :: http://www.speleotrove.com/rexxhist/rexxplat.html ::(both courtesy Mike Cowlishaw) --[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] 20:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC) ~~</pre>~~ ~~--[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] 20:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)~~ Regina 3.4 introduced the single-line comment feature, Regina 3.5 wasn't configurable concerning single-line comments, and it wasn't until Regina 3.6 that allowed the noSingle_line_comments environmental variable. --- Gerard Schildberger ===REXX and o-o REXXes=== Line 124 ⟶ 127: ----- Classic REXX is not object-orientated REXX. To put them under an o-o umbrella would be a disservice to both languages. A classic REXX entered under the ooRexx language would (to me) imply that it would work using ooRexx, and I have no way of testing/verifying that. My main interest is in classic REXX and have no need for object-oriented features. Again: hammer, fly. I test all of my classic REXX program examples (unless noted otherwise) under three classic REXXes: ~~Personnal~~Personal/REXX, Regina (sometimes more than one version when there is a perculiar release-based feature), and R4. [Sometimes I say PC/REXX when I meant to say ~~Personnal~~Personal REXX --- they have the same pedigree.] I don't know what you mean by ''plain'' REXX; the point under discussion is classic REXX vs. the o-o (object-orientated) REXXes. Line 187 ⟶ 190: --[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] 09:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC) ---- I don't quite understand why the overlaying of reasons why an author may or may not want to modify/change a program entry (or even want to) to comply to another's language specification should be at issue. The reasons shouldn't be assummed, nor should it be stated for the sake of (say, compatibility or portability). There may be other reasons, lack of time would be a major concern, for one. It's easy to volunteer another person's time, after all. The classic REXX program examples that were entered were for classic REXX (and don't pretend to be for any other kind), and to enforce another language specifications (or more importantly, restrictions, if you will) isn't warrented nor fair. No other Rosetta Code (language) programming examples have had this demand made of them (that I know of, I obviously haven't looked at the thousands and thousands of programming examples). Rosetta Code is supposed to be a place (I hope) to ''solve tasks according to the task description, using any language you may know'' (slightly re-worded for tense). I hope that the spirit of entering solutions using what languages that one knows is still encouraged. I've been doing that, consumming more time that I ever want to confess. I think 380+ classic REXX examples are enough to stand as a (et al) collective classic REXX effort such that they don't have to be changed just to conform to another version of a REXX langage, object-orientated or not. Nowhere is the demand of portability or compatibility asked or implied by the philosopy of Rosetta Code. I may be wrong, I don't know what is/was in the mind of the founder when he started this site. If ooRexx is that important, then people would've probably entered ooRexx examples long ago. Many of the examples I've entered were ripped out of much bigger classic REXX programs, none of those were designed with even a thought of object-oriented REXXes (or it's restrictions), nor was it even a concern to make it portable to ooRexx (or any other o-o REXX). Running those programs under ooRexx wasn't even feasible nor practical (nor even possible). I don't have an ooRexx to ensure (verify) that the classic REXX examples even run (and produce the correct or same results), nor do I intend to install a version for that purpose. I have no interest in object-oriented programming and also have no wish to ensure/verify that classic REXX programs conform to ooRexx standards/restrictions, nor do I wish to ensure that they run under ooREXX. Object-oriented languages treat everything as objects (as I was told; I don't know that for a fact, nor do I want to take the time and/or effort to learn another language as classic REXX works fine for the programs as coded). Classic REXX doesn't have objects. I hear that ooRexx claims to run (most?) classic REXX programs. I have no interest in proving or disproving that claim, I have no agenda concerning ooRexx. There are more differences than the ones mentioned above, and I'm not an expert in ooRexx (nor care to be), but one long thread (and I mean ''long'') on '''comp.lang.rexx''' had to do with the fact that everything in ooRexx is an object, and therein lies subtle differences in the way classic REXX treats stemmed variables versus how ooRexx does (I believe one main issue was how a ''stem'' is thought of, another issue was stem ''tails''). (Mention was also made about breaking REXX ANSI standards, and that's another topic.) This may seem like a minor detail, but this single case (stems and/or tails) provoked a long and comprehensive and vocal discussion. But being a "newsgroup", it lacked the formality and consise discussion that it deserved. It can't be treated lightly, or more importantly, can't be ignored. I don't have an agenda to promote ooRexx and/or to find/explain/justify/clarify the differences, or why they are present. I'm not sure if there are other languages that have this problem where an object-oriented language is incompatable with the parent (that there be a "few" differences/restrictions/incompatibilites or not). I get the sense that the word ''few'' is being used to give the impression that it's being used to minimize the number of differences -- that's just the way I read it. If not, then there's no reason to qualify the number of differences. Mention was made that ooRexx is a grandchild of classic REXX. I don't see it as that, it's a seperate language (my opinion of course), but it did evolve from a shared basic syntax (as did NetRexx, AREXX, BREXX, PC/REXX, KEXX and probably others), but that's a matter of (everyone's/anyone's) opinion as there is no concise definition of what constitutes a dialect, nor is there a definition of when another language becomes different enough to be called a separate language. That one can change the original language source code so that it runs under the object-oriented version isn't germain. Almost any language can be changed if portability is a main concern (it's just a matter of degree) to run in another. I've done that with BASIC, PL/I, and FORTRAN (to REXX), not with complete success, but it wasn't a useful or pratical endeavor. That's not the way programmers, er ... program. I try to make the classic REXX examples portable to the other classic REXXes that I have access to (and this was years ago), and I do verify the programs to ensure correct and consistant output (with the classic REXXes being used). The classic REXXes all share a very similar definition (of the language), with a hardly a notable omission of a few functions. Nobody has ever asked a '''C''' programmer to make their programs compatible to '''C++''' or '''C#''', or any other language such as Fortran or COBOL. They (object-oriented versions) are different languages, even though the basic syntax is quite similar. One thing about a dialect (as used in Wikipedia) is that it says its a ''relatively small variation or extension of the language''. I can understand when a version of an interpreter/compiler adds functions, functions with more features/options, and maybe even statements. But ooRexx is a major change/enhacement (I think) in capability and syntax. That ooRexx can accept almost all classic REXX syntax isn't the issue, it has to do with the underlining concepts. In the talk section, it was stated that the '''C++''' (object-oriented) isn't a dialect of '''C'''. Now, I'm not claiming that either statement is definitive, it probably just boils down to how many people believe one side of the issue or the other. Judging by the lack of a concise definition, I can only assume this matter is mainly a matter of interpretation as the separation of languages from dialects may end up being a case of degree. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] 14:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC) ---- Much of the above digresses from my question how to handle Rexx programs that can run on classis AND ooRexx without duplicating code or creating variants where not necessary. I looked at (and tested) the alphabetically first 20 Rexx solutions and found 15 of them to be compatible. The five that are not (and the incompatibilities: 24 game/Solve L= Align columns v2: t.=; @.= _= Anagrams @. Apply a callback to an array a.=; b.= Array concatenation p= f= So the major hangup here is the use of assignment without righthandside and second comes the use of symbols (symbol characters that ooRexx does not support. Fixing these would be easy and allow for stating that "all Rexx programs shown here can run under ooRexx". A statement I would love to make. ooRexx IS a grandchild of original Rexx because it was raised in the IBM family. Now it has found a new home in RexxLA and is open source, free, stable and top quality. Whether there are objects inside I don't care. I personally don't use those on the ooutside. Too old for that. --[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] 02:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC) ----- Walter, I wish you would refrain from stating what I don't love to do, or worse yet, assuming the reasons why I don't conform to your philosophy (based on your statements). The major hangups (as you see them) are yours, not mine. My reasons of why I don't dance to your tune are my own. I will ''never'' make as assertion that any of the classic REXX example programs (that I entered on Rosetta Code or elsewhere) will work on ooRexx (or whatever REXX, not just the object-oriented REXXes) if I haven't tested them first on those languages. Some, I'm sure, would work on AREXX or BREXX or OS/2 REXXes or CMS REXX or TSO REXX ..., but I don't have access to those (at least, not directly, and I certainly don't want to ask others to execute my versions on their computer, or worse yet, their employer's computer). I don't have an interest on what does or what doesn't run on object-oriented REXXes; I have no interest in those languages, and I don't have the time nor inclination to install them for whatever reason. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] 20:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Just because ooRexx and classic REXX were developed in the IBM family, doesn't make one a grandchild of the other. QBE was developed by IBM. So were a lot of other languages ... -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] 20:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC) : The next 20 tasks :: 12 ok, 5 use @ or $, 2 use a=, :: and one (Brownian tree) uses @ and a= and scrsize() which is not available in ooRexx. --[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] 19:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC) ----- Yes, the REXX code from the classic REXX example in the ''Brownian tree'' task is: <lang rexx>if height==0 \| width==0 then _=scrsize() /not all REXXes have SCRSIZE./</lang> which clearly states what you've stated. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] 20:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC) ----- An interesting case is under Rexx Roman numerals/Decode : where Version 1 (good for all Rexxes) :: was turned into 2 other versions that are functionally superior but no longer good for ooRexx (due to the use of # and @ --[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] 08:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC) ----- Er, no. The example version 2 for REXX was a straight copy of version 1's functionality (but with the superfluous statements and dead code removed), and as such, mimicked the inability to handle the Roman numberal '''IIXX''' (and others of this type). This means that version 2 has the same functionality as version 1. I had added a comment to that effect (about the inability concerning version 1 and its cousin, version 2), but it was deleted by someone else. This also implies that the NetRexx version has the same problem, as the REXX version (as stated) was taken/copied/transcribed from NetRexx), but I can't verify if the NetRexx version as I don't have access to the NetRexx language. Most likely, other examples have the same inability. REXX version 1 ''may'' be good for all REXXes (which I'm not claiming, as I don't have access to all REXXes to test that claim, and I would be very surprised if anyone still does have access to all REXXes), but version 1 and version 2 still lack the ability to handle REXX numerals of the aforementioned type. I don't know if that makes it good or not. As I mentioned elsewhere, the Roman word for '''18''' is '''duodeviginti''' which translated literally means '''two-from-twenty''', and there exists a photograph(s) of '''IIXX''' chiseled on an archway. I also seen '''XIIX''', which I admit, looks very symetrical. That numeral may not be of the form that was approved of in the years after when the format/form of Roman numerals were codified more restrictively. Even the use of '''IIII''' wasn't approved of, but yet, wrist watches and clocks that use Roman numerals all have that form (I haven't looked at ''all'' watches or clocks, by the way, just a mere half-dozen or so). Proof (tongue-in-cheek): 3 is prime, * 5 is prime, * 7 is prime, * 9 isn't prime (a square), * 11 is prime, * 13 is prime, * 15 isn't prime (ends in 5), * 17 is prime, * 19 is prime, * ... * all odd numbers are prime. I'm not saying that those "unapproved" forms of Roman numerals should be used, but they ''have'' been used, and I think they should be converted correctely (to Arabic numerals). Also, iterating again, I entered the classic REXX code to solve the task, using the language that I know best, and I never claimed it would work on an object-oriented version (such as ooRexx or NetRexx). Even if it would work elsewhere, I don't have the means or inclination (nor the time) to test if a classic REXX program will work on (any or all) object-oriented versions of REXX, or even other platforms, for that matter. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] 20:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC) ----- Again a long story not addressing the points that I made: You changed the program to the worse (for ooRexx!) by changing a reasonable name to a characted not supported by ooRexx. I had the time and the inclination to test (some of) your programs with ooRexx and have shown the results. SCRSIZE: of course you said that. My point: All 40 programs work on ooRexx unchanged or with minimal changes @->a #->n $->d except for this ONE. It's your choice to insist on using @ and # and $ forever. And I end the analysis now. --[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] 06:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)