Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!mcnc!brooking
From: brooking@mcnc.org (Jim Brooking)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re: need a REXX-flavored version of getopt()
Summary: Comments on Pedantry
Message-ID: <7096@alvin.mcnc.org>
Date: 18 Sep 90 00:23:50 GMT
References: <90239.171548BOYDJ@QUCDN.BITNET> <147@rufus.UUCP> <9493@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: MCNC; RTP, NC
Lines: 57

In article <9493@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>, jpl@charming.nrtc.northrop.com (Jeffrey P. Lankford <jlankford>) writes:
> ...
> (where clearly the environment of choice should be CMS):

I don't see why discussions of REXX ought to be restricted to any
particular environment since REXX is, in fact, available on unix, MS-DOS
PC's, Amigas, TSO and likely others I'm not aware of, as you note
below.
> 
> ...
> environments on which it is supported (Amiga, CMS, Unix(?), ...).
> 
> Now here's a question (reply directly and i might post summary)
> for all those folks looking for REXX interpreter/compiler for Unix.
> Why?   When you could use Bourne shell, or csh, or ksh, or tcsh (or *sh)
> (and all the Unix commands expr, awk, sed), why use REXX?

Spoken like an unemployed unix hacker who's been reduced to accepting
charity from a shop running CMS. I can't believe anyone who has used
the internally consistent REXX language and its function set(s) to any
large extent would suggest the use of multiple shell scripts with
arcane grafted-together hacks like awk are in any way comparable to a
REXX program with its (REXX) simplicity and clarity of expression, not
to mention the ease of programming it.

> I can't imagine any hefty REXX applications being ported without modification
> to a different environment (say CMS to Unix), and trivial applications

Sure, sure, and no C program or shell script has ever had system
dependencies coded into it. Right. A really valid criticism for REXX and
certainly not applicable to a--n--y other language. Please....

> could easily be re-written.  REXX without extensions would make a
> lousy Unix command interpretter (no pipes or i/o redirection or job
> control or ...) and if the REXX application isn't a command script,
> but more a string processing application, why not use awk?

Unless I'm missing something one can pipe into and out of a unix REXX
program, redirect I/O, etc. What's the problem? Awk's great if you can
write it correctly the first time, and cover all the contingencies
extant in the file being awked. If not you will often or not get one of
the really helpful error messages awk is famous for, or possibly not get
an indication that there has been a problem, which awk is also noted
for.

Arguments about "who's thing is better" are fundamentally religious in
nature. If one has been born and raised in a unix environment, one will
likely be inclined to favor that environment and compare all others to
it. If one has had experience with a variety of environments, the
tendency to refer to any as "not useful" or worse (Unisys' timesharing
excluded, of course...8-) does not contribute to much of anything in the
discussions at hand, namely, REXX topics.


-- 
>8-}     >:-)     %\(     8^)     :+/     |'[     ;-)     :-O     B^\    :-)
Jim Brooking........North Carolina Supercomputing Center.......(919)248-1145