User talk:Gerard Schildberger: Difference between revisions

:::::: No, that's not correct.   Not all programs (prior to your latest correction).   As obviously shown above, the ooRexx program didn't run under ("my"?) Classic REXXes.   I don't own the REXXes nor are they mine.   As for my Classic REXX programs, I have no interest in ooRexx (as I have said so many times before).   ''Nearly'' is an important word there, and since I don't have an ooRexx, I can't say that they will execute under ooRexx, nor do I want to have to check yet another different language (ooRexx) to verify that it can/does execute correctly with Classic REXX code.   My only interest is writing Classic REXX code for ... Classic REXX.   But aside from that, using an ooRexx construct is a valid reason to put the ooRexx entry in/under the ooRexx language section.   Either that, or change the REXX program to execute correctly (for under Classic REXXes, which you have done).   Using a construct that produces a syntax error(s) for the language it's entered under isn't being helpful, all of the Classic REXXes will produce a syntax error on those statements that only work for ooRexx. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

:::: No, we aren't talking about dialects, but two different languages.   Of course, the first thing to do is agree on a definition of terms, and how those terms would apply to the languages in question.   I certainly don't want to even attempt to accomplish such a task.   This is obviously a ''very'' contentious area.   Because of this, it's a very good idea to keep Classic REXX and ooRexx separate, leastwise there'll be so much more of this type of conversations, with nothing being solved or accomplished.   Just saying that Classic REXX and ooRexx are the same language doesn't make it so, even though there is a lot of overlap of instructions, syntax, BIFs, and whatever, but as you observed in the above (error producing) examples, all of the Classic REXXes (that I have easy access to) received a syntax failure (error) in the program in question.   To someone reading Rosetta Code looking at Classic REXX solutions, it isn't constructive in learning Classic REXX when the REXX program produces syntax errors.   This isn't nit-picking, there are enough differences between the two languages to keep them separate at this late point.   Lumping them together at this time would mean more confusion/disagreements and would make it harder to find a Classic REXX solution.   I can't speak to the issue of Pascal and Delphi, but each language has enough differences to warrant separation, and I certainly don't want to be the instrument in unringing that bell;   I think it's way to late for something like that, assuming that would be a good idea in the first place.   [A while back, not too long ago, someone tried to combine the various BASICs together under one ''category'' (not languages), and that was quite the ... ruckus (my interpretation) ... as it was.]   Lumping programs together into the same language entry would mean explanations as to what programs are what and which REXX language it executes under (and/or which REXX is required), and it would be harder to find/search for programs in whatever "dialect" (if indeed, they are dialects) is being searched for.   [It helps that there is only one ooRexx, so that makes it simple to have an ooRexx language category.   I have yet to see a comprehensive least of the differences between the two languages, and when a subtle (my word) difference is noted, it causes much heated discourse and debate on such newsgroups like '''comp.lang.rexx''' --- one such difference is in the use of stems (arrays) --- but this is only important if one tries to use a Classic REXX program (or snippet of code) with ooRexx --- and the result is different.]   But as it is, REXX and ooRexx are separate language entries (in Rosetta Code), and as such, if someone enters an ooRexx language entry in the (Classic) REXX language entry, than it should work with (any?) Classic REXX interpreter.   If that were done, we wouldn't be having this discourse.   In short terse terms, if you enter a language entry, execute it with that language for that entry.   If someone wants to enter ooRexx programs, then use the ooRexx language entry.   It would be a disservice to assume that a person who wants to see a (Classic) REXX program work, but the example entry is using an ooRexx program and it isn't suitable for their (Classic) REXX environment (for whatever reason).   I can see two large uses/reasons for entries in (Classic REXX) in Rosetta Code:   learning the Classic REXX language (by observing program examples), and/or borrowing the code to work with any Classic REXX (or at least, a Classic REXX). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)