Anonymous user
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Dialects: Difference between revisions
m
added comments about changing classic REXX vs object-oriented REXX versions. -- ~~~~
(removed a comment requesting clarification for which REXX was being referred to. -- ~~~~) |
m (added comments about changing classic REXX vs object-oriented REXX versions. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 187:
--[[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 seperation of languages from dialects may end up being a case of degree. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 14:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
| |||