Anonymous user
Talk:Idiomatically determine all the characters that can be used for symbols: Difference between revisions
Talk:Idiomatically determine all the characters that can be used for symbols (view source)
Revision as of 00:48, 13 September 2014
, 9 years ago→ooRexx is an Interpreter of Classic Rexx (and MUCH more): added comments about ooRexx programs being placed somwhere not in the ooRexx language section.
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) |
(→ooRexx is an Interpreter of Classic Rexx (and MUCH more): added comments about ooRexx programs being placed somwhere not in the ooRexx language section.) |
||
Line 16:
Please reinstate my program instead of unjustly (re)moving it. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 19:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
: BTW: Version 2 under ooRexx makes absolutely no sense!!! Please remove it --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 19:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-----
Whether or not an ooRexx program makes sense or not to be in the ooRexx section (category/language/etc) isn't the issue. The 2nd ooRexx version looked different enough in my eyes (and therefore not the same program), so it was moved to the ooRexx section (but the main reason was that the ooRexx program was an ooRexx program, and ooRexx programs have their own language section).
... And whether or not ooRexx has more features and facilities isn't the point either.
The '''REXX''' language (on Rosetta Code) is for '''Classic REXX''', not for '''ooRexx''' (and as you know, ooRexx has it's own section).
If I find a language (such as Run BASIC) in the BASIC section, I'd probably move that also. It's not like that I'm ''deleting'' it or somesuch. Each language has it's own section, and I can understand why someone would mistakenly enter such a program under the wrong BASIC language section.
And, yes, I refuse to accept the statement (which is not a fact) that the ooRexx is an interpreter that can ''perfectly'' process Classic Rexx (there's no need to put the word ''classic'' in quotes unless you're referring to some other Classic REXX definition). (By the way, I use the definition of Classic REXX as defined in an IBM document quite a few years back which was published about the time that oRexx was being talked about, and there needed to be a better definition of what the ''REXX'' language was (as far as syntax, etc) versus the REXX language variant that was being discussed in the oRexx document). Please don't try to make out that I'm a bad guy for not accepting that statement as a fact (even if I do it again and again). It isn't a fact, so I shouldn't be put on the carpet that I refuse to accept a (false) fact (even if more than once). This isn't the place to argue about that statement and I don't want to be part of that myth. Also, the use of ''few (actually very few) restrictions'' wording depends on what you mean by few (put a number on it), and better still, list all the differences. Whatever the list is, it most likely won't be complete, and I have yet to see a comprehensive or itemized list. It shouldn't be that hard to draw up a list, after all, those differences should be known by the supporters and maintainers of ooRexx. As ooRexx isn't my dog, I have no interest nor do I have an agenda in compiling that list. That should be left to the people pushing the idea that ooRexx can perfectly process (or just process) any Classic REXX program. But the bottom line here is that there are enough differences (not to mention ooRexx's other features, capabilities, and options), which in my mind, make it a different language. I have never seen that list either (of ooRexx's expanded facilities) that are different from the features offered in any Classic REXX). But, whether or not I believe any part of such a statement, doesn't negate the fact that ooRexx has it's own language section, and that's where ooRexx programs belong, not in the Classic Rexx language section.
Also, it doesn't matter if ooRexx may execute a Classic REXX program (or not), ooRexx still has its own language section, and it exists for more than one reason (and I'll not go into listing them here --- but the ooRexx language section DOES exist, and it's for ooRexx programs) --- puting ooRexx programs yet into another language section is a waste of space on Rosetta Code and also user's time and effort when trying to find a Classic REXX solution. I have no agenda trying to push ooRexx (and it's claim that it can run/execute Classic REXX programs). We've been here before, '''REXX''' is for any Classic REXX interpreter, '''ooRexx''' is for the Object Orientated Rexx interpreter(s). I won't remove the (2<sup>nd</sup>) ooRexx entry that was moved to the ooRexx section; if the original author wants to remove it, they can of course. Let's try to keep the two languages separate and refrain from entering ooRexx programs under the wrong language category. A while back, someone actually used the (my) Classic REXX program (in its entirety) and executed it ''in toto'' under another (non-REXX) language, and it produced exactly the same output (and it was noted as such in that other language's '''output''' section). That another language (not any form of REXX) correctly executed the Classic REXX program doesn't give me license to enter that Classic REXX program under another language (section), even though it executes the REXX program perfectly correct (sic). There is no need to enter an ooRexx program under two language entries (REXX and ooREXX). Putting another language under the '''REXX''' entry just to show the differences between Classic REXX and ooRexx is not the way to show the differences. One can just view the output of the ooRexx program (under the ooRexx section) and compare it with the program under the REXX entry to see the differences (that goes for '''NetRexx''' as well). Adding a duplicate version under the wrong or inappropriate section is contrary to the philosophy at Rosetta Code (as I understand it). I know there is a falsely-held belief that ooRexx will execute Classic REXX programs, but there is enough differences such that ooRexx has its own section, so the claim that ooRexx executes (all/some/many) Classic REXX programs is a mute point. I do understand that ooRexx ''' ''may'' ''' correctly execute some Classic REXX programs. But there are enough differences in the two languages that having ooRexx programs under the Classic REXX language section would just clutter up the entries in the REXX section; why make it more difficult for people who want to just look at Classic REXX programs and not have to wade through ooRexx programs as well? Putting ooRexx programs under the Classic REXX language section will also make it a royal pain in the neckhole if a person wanted to find an ooRexx program for a Rosetta Code task, and they had to look in two places, ooRexx and also (Classic) REXX. There are enough versions of Classic REXX programs as it is. That is one reason why ooRexx has its own language section, but certainly not the only reason). Furthermore, I certainly don't want to go through 700 different Classic REXX entries and label each of them as being Classic REXX and which Classic REXX interpreter that was used to test the program which produced the output (not the least of which are the mis-entered ooRexx programs in the Classic REXX section) --- it's always easy to suggest that somebody else do the work. So, that would be another reason to keep and have ooRexx entries in the ooRexx language section. Classic REXX programs in the REXX language section, ooRexx programs in the ooRexx language section, NetRexx programs in the NetRexx language section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
| |||