Anonymous user
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Dialects: Difference between revisions
m
added REXX and o-o REXXes section. -- ~~~~
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
m (added REXX and o-o REXXes section. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 92:
</pre>
--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] 20:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
===REXX and o-o REXXes===
(This section was being edited at exactly the same time as the previous section.)
Classic REXX and the object-oriented REXXes have a similiar problem (with dialects, language and concept extensions, re-definitions, incompatibilities, dropped features, added features, etc) in that ooRexx, NetRexx, ROO! (and others) are somewhat of a continuation of classic REXXes (at least, those features that are still approved), with object-oriented features added, and the object-oriented REXXes aren't fully compatiable the classic REXX language. A list of incompatabilities between classic REXX and the object-oriented REXXes is apparently being developed, as some of the differences are quite subtle.
Up to very recently, people have been entering NetRexx and ooRexx solutions under '''NetRexx''' and '''ooREXX''' instead of '''REXX'''. Some of the REXX examples have been modified (and modified again) so that they can apparently execute under a particular ooRexx (but not necessarily NetRexx or others). Not everyone who enters (and tests) classic REXX has an ooRexx or NetRexx interpreter available to verify if the REXX program(s) will work on the various o-o REXXes. Putting them all under the REXX language umbrella would necessitate someone going back and entering disclaimers to virtually all of the classic REXX entries, stating that it works for classic REXX, but not necessarily ooRexx and/or NetRexx and/or ROO (since there may be a lack of test platforms), so there may not be a statement which o-o REXXes it works or not works on. This would make the REXX entries pretty bulky and make perusing unwieldly and harder to follow visually. I don't feel that moving all the ooREXX and NetRexx examples back to classic REXX would serve any useful purpose, nor entering ooRexx examples in the classic REXX section (which just clutters up entries for classic REXX), and since ooRexx has it's own section, it would behoove everyone to keep ooRexx and NetRexx examples in the ooRexx and NetRexx language section, respectively. Entering object-orientated REXX language programs in non object-orientated (classic) REXX language section would be like entering C# and other o-o C's under the '''C''' language. Each lanuage has their own syntax. I certainly don't know where the line is drawn between dialects and specific implementation differences. I know you can change Fortran programs enough so they run under REXX, but I can't see the use of that portability.
* 387 (classic) REXX examples (with one cross-posting)
* 120 NetRexx examples (with no classic REXX postings)
* 120 ooRexx examples (with no classic REXX postings)
Since the above mentioned ''cross-entering'' has now occurred (with no apparent corrective possibility) and that this is continuing to happen, I would hope there would be a consensus before the pollution gets to far to be corrected easily. As an aside, I have no desire to change program syntax or variables for portability to a language that is of no interest to me, I'm trying to write the classic REXX code to ensure that it works for all classic REXX interpreters (that I can test) and I'm not interested in object-oriented languages. For classic REXX programs, it's like using a hammer to kill a fly. That is why there exists two other o-o REXX language sections (NetRexx and ooRexx). I haven't seen any effort in making ooRexx compatible to class REXX (and there shouldn't be, of course; that portability wouldn't be useful, I should think). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 21:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
| |||