Anonymous user
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Dialects: Difference between revisions
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Dialects (view source)
Revision as of 22:08, 15 August 2012
, 11 years ago→REXX and o-o REXXes: corrected a misspelling. -- ~~~~
m (corrected spelling of separation. -- ~~~~) |
m (→REXX and o-o REXXes: corrected a misspelling. -- ~~~~) |
||
| (16 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 ===
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
:- Multi-line strings (extending a string over line boundaries
:- Bifs: externals, find, index, justify, linesize
:- the Upper instruction
:- /= and /== as alternatives to \= or \== (see characters below)
Stream I/O is only optional on TSO (not on 'mine')
(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 /* ... */)
Avoiding all of the language elements mentioned above makes a program
portable across all Rexxes (including the two
Using additional features introduced with other implementations
(notably directives in ooRexx) will also prohibit program porting.
Characters:
:Originally ¬ was
: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
: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)
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:
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 193 ⟶ 196:
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)
| |||