Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx Subject: Re: A Suggestion For Adding Function Pointers To REXX Message-ID: Date: 20 Feb 90 13:12:32 GMT References: <1990Feb9.181153.417@ultra.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 16 In article <1990Feb9.181153.417@ultra.com> hayes@ultra.com (John Hayes) writes: > As I see it, using REXX as anything but a quick prototyping language and > for macro definition under XEDIT, we are just bound to waste more cpu cycles > by not having those applications written in a true, optimizable language. While I agree with the categorisation of REXX as a kindler and gentler BASIC, I don't see that this conclusion holds. Even on large IBM systems CPU cycles are cheaper than programmer cycles, and if it's easier to program in REXX than PL/I why not use it? Consider, for example, the UNIX environment where so much of the system is actually built up out of shell scripts. Consider C news, which uses shell scripts extensively but by virtue of intelligent encapsulation gets something like 20 times the performance of B news where it counts. On the other hand, I'm not sure that a compiled REXX is a good idea, given the ease of adding external commands in either environment. Write your tight inner loops in PL/I and glue them together with easy-to-read, modular, REXX. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'