Talk:Josephus problem: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→failings of languages not working with other languages: added a clarifying statement. -- ~~~~ |
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) →failings of languages not working with other languages: actually it's not languages that fail but programs |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
::::: Yes, it's possible to modify REXX programs to execute under REXX, PL/I, Fortran, IBM assembler, ''and'' ooRexx. It would be a fun and amusing exercise, but not practical (kinda like programming in HQ9+, Brainf***, Befunge, or Whitespace). Just to make clear what I meant, I meant the program would not be changed, the same version would execute ''as is'' under REXX, PL/I, Fortran, IBM assembler, and ooRexx. Three main concerns: one has to ''think'' in several languages (and know each of their limitations), and have access to each of those compilers/interpreters, ''and'' take the time to test each of them. I have access to seven "common" REXXes plus almost all flavors of Regina REXX, and it takes a lot just to check those versions out. Indeed, three of them are too much trouble to test. Another would be to think what statements are in common and not use those REXX statements that can't be (of won't be) acceptable in another language (and even if in the ''same'' language, if you catch my humor). I don't program in that mode, it's too restrictive (and as the ole joke goes, nobody's paying me enough). I have never worked at a shop that said: "go ahead and program for our IBM FORTRAN H compiler, but don't you use any FORTRAN statements that won't work on a CDC or Cray Fortran compiler". I'm sure that there are circumstances where that isn't the case, but most programmers try to code the most efficient (and productively) for a specific compiler/interpreter (unless they are in the business of selling software instead of just ''using'' it). The closest I've ever got to restrictive programming is to make sure that my programs worked on all of our sysplex's software, and they were, for the most part, mostly in sync. This meant that the (IBM) REXX compiler couldn't be used (mostly) because it wasn't available everywhere. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC) |
::::: Yes, it's possible to modify REXX programs to execute under REXX, PL/I, Fortran, IBM assembler, ''and'' ooRexx. It would be a fun and amusing exercise, but not practical (kinda like programming in HQ9+, Brainf***, Befunge, or Whitespace). Just to make clear what I meant, I meant the program would not be changed, the same version would execute ''as is'' under REXX, PL/I, Fortran, IBM assembler, and ooRexx. Three main concerns: one has to ''think'' in several languages (and know each of their limitations), and have access to each of those compilers/interpreters, ''and'' take the time to test each of them. I have access to seven "common" REXXes plus almost all flavors of Regina REXX, and it takes a lot just to check those versions out. Indeed, three of them are too much trouble to test. Another would be to think what statements are in common and not use those REXX statements that can't be (of won't be) acceptable in another language (and even if in the ''same'' language, if you catch my humor). I don't program in that mode, it's too restrictive (and as the ole joke goes, nobody's paying me enough). I have never worked at a shop that said: "go ahead and program for our IBM FORTRAN H compiler, but don't you use any FORTRAN statements that won't work on a CDC or Cray Fortran compiler". I'm sure that there are circumstances where that isn't the case, but most programmers try to code the most efficient (and productively) for a specific compiler/interpreter (unless they are in the business of selling software instead of just ''using'' it). The closest I've ever got to restrictive programming is to make sure that my programs worked on all of our sysplex's software, and they were, for the most part, mostly in sync. This meant that the (IBM) REXX compiler couldn't be used (mostly) because it wasn't available everywhere. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::: I am asking for programs that run unmodified on all versions and that is quite easy. REXX->PL/I and others I'd call translation! REXX->ooRexx is also a translation when I use new features in order to simplify the algorithm. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 08:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::;The Rexx programs that carry my name should work on all REXXes ( I cannot test them on others since I don't have any other - I had TSO Rexx till 12/2012). Addition on 10 May; My dream / vision is that all programs shown under REXX should work on ALL REXX implementations unless otherwise marked (No, I won't mark your programs that way - it's only a dream). Those under ooRexx will, of course, only work with ooRexx (and not Roo as was noted recently - I CAN catch your humor) --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 10:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC) |
:::::;The Rexx programs that carry my name should work on all REXXes ( I cannot test them on others since I don't have any other - I had TSO Rexx till 12/2012). Addition on 10 May; My dream / vision is that all programs shown under REXX should work on ALL REXX implementations unless otherwise marked (No, I won't mark your programs that way - it's only a dream). Those under ooRexx will, of course, only work with ooRexx (and not Roo as was noted recently - I CAN catch your humor) --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 10:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC) |
||