Anonymous user
Category talk:OoRexx: Difference between revisions
→ooRexx fully compatible with classic REXX
m (→Coloring / Highlighting Rexx code: chicken lips term. -- ~~~~) |
|||
Line 32:
Also, it was suggested that some classic REXX programs be changed to run under ooRexx. Could sauce for the gander be sauce for the goose? That is, could ooRexx programs be changed to run under classic REXX? [I'm not suggesting that this be done, I'm asking the more-or-less rhetorical question.] I'm not an ooRexx expert (I can spell it easily enough), but do simple tasks require the use of object-only features? I would imagine some tasks could use those features to make the code more concise or easier. I didn't intend for my dog to be dragged into this discusion (on ooRexx), I was entering classic REXX programs only. And then the ''24 game'' was thrown in front and center into a roiling controversy. If it weren't for the changes and programming style made to the classic REXX program that I entered, I wouldn't be here in an ooRexx discussion trying to defend statements that I didn't make concerning classic REXX vs. ooRexx. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
----
Apologies if I misquoted you - the only quote I can see that I attributed to you was ''fully compatible'' which I see even now in the 2nd para of this section and the section header. I admit that you did not press for this wording, merely included it in your argument. It was careless of me to refer to you as ''pressing for it'', and reading your post again in the light of your more recent post, your original post seems more reasonable. My mistake.
I'm not sure I follow all your arguments Gerard.
As I see it, ooRexx is a classic rexx interpreter, that also has object oriented abilities. I would be surprised if there are any tasks that would run on the other classic rexx interpreters that could not be made to run on the ooRexx interpreter using only the classic features with few changes.
It seems true - though it comes as a genuine surprise to me that many of the rexx examples here are written in such a way that they will not run on ooRexx.
I don't have the numbers, but I believe there are many people who run ooRexx, without taking advantage of the oo facilities. The point I was trying to make is that the differences you find when you use it like this are like the differences between one classic rexx interpreter and another.
I would say that the main difference between ooRexx as a classic rexx interpreter and the other classic rexx interpreters is that ooRexx syntax checks the whole code before running any of it thus you cannot have syntactically invalid code in a clause even if it is never run.
Other differences can generally be avoided, the use of -- for + is problematic in ooRexx, but you could write code that would function on any interpreter by leaving a space between the operators without changing the meaning or function of your code. Certain characters such as @ were valid in early interperters, but cannot be used in ooRexx, although it does honour the ¬ sign.
Of course Regina has several features such as address-with that I believe are unique to it just as personal Rexx did (I loved the RxWindow package).
I don't know which of the rexx examples are yours, but many of them would run on ooRexx if they didn't use variable names like @. However, if the task demanded single character unreadable variable names you could still use ! or ?.
Perhaps you might explain to me why you would object to the rexx code examples here being written in such a way that they would be portable between what are probably the two most popular rexx interpreters. I would see that as an improvement that would serve visitors to this site and cannot understand why you would object. If you do object, then it might be as well to know which of the rexx examples are yours.
thanks. --[[User:Sahananda|Sahananda]] 22:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
== Plagiarism ==
| |||