Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!imagen!atari!portal!portal!cup.portal.com!Will
From: Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re: A Suggestion For Adding Function Pointers To REXX
Message-ID: <27148@cup.portal.com>
Date: 20 Feb 90 18:55:58 GMT
References: <1990Feb9.181153.417@ultra.com>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 40


< This entire discussion seems to have been conducted under the assumption that
< REXX is a programming language.  As I learned it, while it may technically
< be called a language, it's primary design function was to provide a better
< way to write simple interpreted scripts than exec2 (An older interpreted

Right you are.  But the implementation far exceeds this initial purpose.
Cowlishaw was asked to build a better Volkswagon and he came up with
something that looks a little more like a Porsche.  It's a question of
objectively looking at a product and what it does and how it does it
and coming to our own conclusions rather that blindly accepting IBM's
pronouncements.  

< 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.

First, there are ways to optimize typeless languages so that they would perform
quite reasonably in compiled form.   Second, even if we accept the premise
that REXX is only valuable as an interpretive prototyping language, it
is still valid to ask what changes could we make to the language to make
it more powerful for just that purpose.  A prototyping language is a programmin
g
language none the less, and there are questions of ease of use, maintainability
of code, etc.  Third, you have not spent much time in the real world if you
really believe that REXX is being used as a prototyping language.  On VM/CMS
it is used by many companies as a mainstream application development tool.
I know of one site that has a REXX system that approaches one million lines
of code.  I know of many sites with 10,000+ line applications.  To argue
that this is not an appropriate use of the language is like arguing that
people shouldn't drive in the rain because it's dangerous.  People are
going to drive in the rain anyway because practical concerns make it 
impossible not to, so car manufacturers improve the basic design of their
cars for rainy conditions.  Similarly, companies in the real world are
using REXX for production applications because of practical concerns (like
it's nearly impossible to find qualified C and assembly programmers and it's
much harder to maintain the resulting code), so why not accomodate reality
by improving REXX?

Will              (sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Will)