Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rexx Is Still Strong After 25 years

Posted by timothy on from the not-the-tiny-PDA dept.

therexxman writes "March marks the 25th anniversary of the Rexx programming language, and to celebrate the Rexx Language Association is hosting the 15th Annual Rexx Symposium at the IBM Research Labs in Boeblingen, Germany, from May 2 to 6, 2004. Full details of the Symposium can be found in the 2004 Rexx Symposium Announcement. Many of the world's 'Rexxperts' will be in attendance including Rexx's founder, Decimal Arithmetic guru, and IBM Fellow, Mike Cowlishaw."

22 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. My Input by Sla$hd0tSux0r · · Score: 1, Interesting
    A few colleagues and I investigated the Rexx a couple months ago. I have to tell you that I was unimpressed, as there are more powerful and yet less expensive solutions which should be hitting the market soon.

    Therefore I believe the Rexx is overrated and I would recommend against it. Just my two cents.

    1. Re:My Input by smallpaul · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember after OS/2 I was pretty pumped about Object REXX. Back in the day Python was unknown and Perl was, er, Perl. But IBM decided to make Object REXX pay-to-play and it never became popular.

    2. Re:My Input by Almost-Retired · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ARexx is nothing like a basic IMO. More like a higher level of C thats interpreted rather than compiled. And I've written stuff in ARexx that couldn't be done near as easily in any other langage I've found so far, simply because ARexx isn't a subset of Rexx, its a superset. No other language has a similar concept of an "arexx comm port", where any arexx program can talk to and therefore control or exchange data with, any other arexx program that makes use of this feature.

      I have some scripts I wrote in '97, running yet today on an amiga, simply because I haven't figured out a way to do them in any other language that doesn't have this feature. They generate the news archives for wdtv.com's web site by extracting the prompter/CC text from the newsrooms newsserver NT box, and html formatting it for your reading pleasure.

      Lots of the amiga's arexx scripts can be run by regina, but the minute you bring in the ports functions, regina is tits up and dead in the water. And when the regina list was asked about "ports", and I tried to describe them, their response was to play dumb. They couldn't envision the utility it represented at all, and couldn't see any usefull reason to even consider adding them to the language.

      Now, if William (Bill) Hawes, who wrote arexx, had been paid by commode door, he might have been interested in porting his version to other platforms, but as far as I have been able to find out, he never was able to collect a penny for his efforts in doing it. The only money collection he ever did was by his own marketing efforts, selling it to amiga users whose OS version didn't come with the freebie. I know, we bought 2 copies of it ourselves. I also personally bought a copy of an arexx compiler called rexxplus that turned the scripts into standalone binaries that ran much faster on less cpu.

      Yes, arexx had its warts with its typeless data, but they were entirely tolerable considering what it could do.

      Cheers, Gene

    3. Re:My Input by Dinosaur+Neil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, Object REXX is available for Linux no-charge (as is) here. I've been using it with MySQL to kludge up a home inventory, as well as a few data extraction scripts for a project at school. While I'm planning learning a more conventional scripting language for Linux, I still haven't found any that match the power of the PARSE... But I digress.

      --
      "I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
  2. Call me ignorant, but... by Faust7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd never heard of REXX before. Looking at the FAQ, I found my explanation:

    This FAQ is for REXX/MVS, that is, REXX for IBM mainframes (MVS, OS/390 and VM).

    Okay... but is this language at the forefront of modern computing, or even close to it? That's not a cynical inquiry; I'd literally never heard of this language before and I'm curious to know whether it's making some kind of progressive, hidden impact that was just totally unknown to me.

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    --
    The coolest voice ever.
    1. Re:Call me ignorant, but... by hcg50a · · Score: 2, Interesting

      REXX was way ahead of its time when it came out, and when I used it in 1989, it was still very powerful and useful, though it was playing catchup with the personal computer world.

      The programs we ran on the the IBM 370-type mainframes generally had their user interfaces written in REXX, and they were easy to write and easy to change.

      REXX became the scripting language of choice for OS/2, which beats to hell the pitiable DOS batch file language, but other scripting languages have far surpassed it now, yet play a similar role.

      So, I'd say REXX is pretty much a relic, but I still have fond memories of using it to advantage 15 years ago.

      --
      HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
      11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
  3. Remember aRexx? by bennomatic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This reminds me of wasting hours and hours on my Amiga500. Yeah, it only had 3MB of RAM and no hard drive, but give me a blitter chip and four channel audio any day! Anyway, there was a great version of Rexx for the Amiga that became the defacto scripting dialect of the day. Great stuff, that aRexx.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
    1. Re:Remember aRexx? by gilesjuk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But can you imagine the fun you'd have with ARexx these days with viruses? I know the Amiga didn't really suffer that many of them (mostly the old bootblock viruses in the floppy disk days) but imagine an Email app with an ARexx port :)

      KDE does have DCOP which lets you add script functionality to your apps as well as link separate apps together. It's just not as well utilised as it should be (from a users perspective).

  4. Sure is! by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 2, Interesting
    So strong I've never heard of it, and looking through the websites, all the faqs are simply lists of links to other faqs, and when I finally get to one that isn't a list of links, it just gives me some information about problems I might be having with Rexx executables, with no info anywhere about what Rexx is. Let's see, there's Java, C++, C, perl, Python, Intercal and a host of other languages with clear and obvious purposes and faqs, and therefore I should care about Rexx because? Maybe this would be a good opportunity for a /. editor to put some comment in there like "Rexx is a [functional | procedural | object oriented | portable | braindead] language?

    ----------
    Create a WAP server

  5. go go rqqrtnb! by lysander · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was funny then and it's funny now.

    --
    GET YOUR WEAPONS READY! --DR.LIGHT
    1. Re:go go rqqrtnb! by MisterBad · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, except it's an exact copy of a Pigdog Journal article by yours truly.

      --
      Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
  6. Rexx and Kedit by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I still use Kedit, a win32 programmer's editor, that uses Rexx as the macro language and it rocks (both the editor and the macro environment). Even though Mansfield software has quit supporting Kedit about a decade ago it is still the best editor on the windows platform. I tried switching several times - first to Brief then to Codewright and then Slick edit but came back to Kedit because of if clean interface and performance.

    I send mansfield an e-mail every so often requesting a Linux version or ask to open source the code but they just ignore me. Kedit would be a good replacement for vi on linux.

    Any other Kedit fans out there? BTW not to be confused with the KDE based editor by the same name.

    1. Re:Rexx and Kedit by Stalky · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Modern IDEs typically just provide a more productive way to get the day-to-day work done.

      Once upon a time, a PC guru came to our department to tell us we needed to use a PC editor to edit our mainframe source, as well as a PC front-end to our debugger, because that was the only way we could get an IDE. We showed him our complete compile-debug-edit environment based on the mainframe editor that inspired KEdit, and he departed, taking his PC software with him. Basically, XEdit/Rexx was Emacs/eLisp, only years ahead of it.

      --
      Jeff
  7. Brings back memories by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I have rarely used REXX in recent years, but have fond memories of it from the late 1970s and the 1980s. In those days, I used to do a lot of development under VM/XA. Anyone who previously had to script in the old EXEC or EXEC2 could not help but see REXX as an unbelievable advance. Later, I used both PC REXX and the (inspired by REXX) KEXX macro language packaged with the KEDIT editor to write some very decent tools. Performance was not stellar, but that was really the only serious drawback (and, even there, it was better than most other interpreted languages of its day).

    I doubt whether academics see much to love in the language, but I always found it easy to learn and very effective in getting things done. On the few occasions I have used it in recent years, I have still considered it highly useable (and I speak as someone who has used Perl, Python, Lua and even occasionally Ruby).

  8. I still use it even today by laejoh · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I work at a back where we have a Siemens Mainframe (BS2000) and use Win 2000 machines with Logics (a terminal emulator for the 9720's BS2000 machines use).

    Back at Y2K when we didn't have too much to do (being at work only watching the blinkenlights) I wrote my own interface to BS2000 in REXX to bypass Logics.

    Ok, the thing isn't perfect; the terminal emulation sucks (it's not 3270 and info is very hard to find). I never perfected it. The little REXX routines do their jobs well enough and I'm too lazy to beg Siemens for manuals which describe terminal emulation.

    I now use cygwin and call REXX scripts from within a bash shell. A great way to automate lookups on the mainframe: the output of my REXX scripts gets redirected in cygwin and I can grep/awk/sed/perl for what I need.

    ...So it's nice to see REXX is still going :)

  9. Re:Rexx was great at the time, compared to ksh etc by erice · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On the other hand, as I pointed out in my speech that day, there was another new language coming up that was 20000% better. It was called Perl. Perhaps you've heard of it. :-)

    I don't really agree here. REXX is a free form shell scripting language and stomps on everything else I have used for that purpose and that includes perl. You can write a simple sequence of commands with virtually no syntactic clutter and incrementally add expressions and control structures. With REXX, one can effortless take a program across the entire practical range of tranditional Unix shell languanges and far beyond.

    Perl, of course, is more powerful but it is not really a shell language. It's syntax is more complex and gets in the way when you are trying to mix control code with command calls.

    I still write bourne shell scripts. I also write awkward "shell" scripts in perl. But I would rather use REXX.

  10. Re:Rexx IS going strong by wizardguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My first job. I wrote an Email System in Rexx for CMC ( had four IBM VM systems over the country linked together ). It was the first email system for a Company. Was better and faster then VM/Profs which IBM offered. Everyone used it for 5 to 6 years.
    Go Rexx!! a great language for writing code.

  11. I like it by Zusstin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    WHen I started my first job , to work on Airline Applications - TPF based, on VM/CMS - I started using REXX. Then, at times, whenever I required a particular action on CMS file(s), I started writing REXX EXECs to do it for me. Although my demands were not that tough, as most of the times it was only to help me save my time while working, I found it extremely easy to write EXEcs. And I had no formal training in REXX. For me, its easy to understand the REXX commands/syntax. As I have no experience on Perl or whatever other stuff that you guys may be discussing, I am not in a position to compare REXX with anything else. But I like REXX and I am happy to see that it's still doing the job for me.

  12. Re:Why REXX Rocked So Hard by biobogonics · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the other hand, it also featured arbitrary precision mathematics, which is a pretty nifty and not altogether common feature for a language.

    It's perfect, although somewhat slow, for working with very large integers. No special programming is required. Just add NUMERIC DIGITS 20 (for example) and you have 20 digit decimal numbers. It was very easy to translate an old program for Knuth's algorithm S (the spectral test) that once used UCSD Pascal's "long integers" (31 decimal digits + sign) into REXX.

  13. Re:Why REXX Rocked So Hard by Ray+Radlein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Back then, when I was first working with REXX, my wife was finishing up her second Master's degree in Math. Her thesis involved some pretty hairy prime decomposition and polynomial factoring, and required some pretty high precision math. She had just discovered that PL/1 wouldn't be able to keep up, and I kept jokingly suggesting REXX. Instead of REXX, she went with Maple, an arbitrary precision math package from Waterloo, if I recall (the name seems like a good hint that it was Canadian).

    Given that one of her more significant runs ended up tallying one CPU- Month on the Math Department's 780, I suppose it's just as well that she didn't use an interpreted language like REXX.

    On the other hand, I remember discovering that REXX must have had some fairly smart tricks built in to its mathematical functionality. Back when I was doing OS/2 programming, awed by the awesome processing power of the 16Mhz 386, I exercised the OS/2 REXX interpreter by writing a teeny-tiny program to output the value of X raised to the X power, for a variety of different values of X. For X = 99, it took forever; on the other hand, for X = 100, it finished almost immediately. Like I said, someone put some smarts in there.

  14. Re:Rexx was great... by broter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've heard a lot of people saying good things about REXX. Sadly, it only took one bad experience to sour me to the language.

    At CountryWide Home Loans there's a group that's responsible for transfering loan data between the branches and the AS400's. They use a commercial tool that has the option of firing off a program or script at a givien time, kinda like a weak cron.

    So, long before I got there, someone said, "Hey, since we're running this on OS/2 we can use REXX for the new service management is asking for." Sadly, none of them were programmers. They added on parts based on when the script was run instead of what is did. Over the years, the whole systems grew into a self referential uneditable monster.

    For those who don't know REXX, it defaults all variables to be the text of their names (eg. MYVAR would default to a value of "MYVAR"), REXX behaves like Perl without use strict (all typo's are new variables, initialized to their misspoelled names), and (just about)anything that doesn't parse to something meaningfull in the language is passed along into the shell. This lead to some of the most bizaar emergent behaviour I've ever seen.

    Instead of failing completely and dieing a well deserved death, REXX allowed it to twitch on, destroying operators, programmers and management in its path. Add to that someone's brilliant idea to have it page the programmer whenever it idn't complete its task at 2:30AM (I inherited the pager the previous bastard hardcoded into the script).

    Since then, I hear my old coworker recoded the entire thing, and it's now a beautiful machine that doesn't fail in any horrible way (if anyone could have done that with REXX, it was him). I don't know. I don't care. Once around the REXX monster is more than enough for me.

    --
    "One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
    - Mick Travis, "If..."
  15. Response from Kedit by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From: ------- [KEDIT]
    [mailto:------------]
    Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 1:00 PM
    To: '------------'
    Subject: RE: Kedit Port

    Hi Steven,

    Thanks for the link. It's nice to see that KEDIT still has admirers.
    To correct a couple of points in the threads I looked at:

    1) "I send mansfield an e-mail every so often requesting a Linux
    version or ask to open source the code but they just ignore me."

    We never ignore Linux/Unix version inquiries but there really haven't
    been many over the years. We've been consistent in stating that we
    have no plans for a Unix/Linux KEDIT. We've also been consistent in
    stating that there are no open source plans.

    1) "Mansfield software has quit supporting Kedit about a decade ago."

    We still do support KEDIT for DOS, OS/2 and Windows. We essentially
    don't sell KEDIT for DOS and OS/2 anymore since we ran out of manuals
    some time ago and with sales of these versions so low, it wasn't cost
    effective to print more. We sell license-only copies occasionally to
    users who already know the product and need some more copies to be
    legal. We're still selling KEDIT for Windows 1.5. We have no new
    versions of KEDIT in the works though and perhaps this was what was
    meant by the above comment.

    Thanks again for the link. I only wish I had some better news for you.

    ------ -------
    Mansfield Software Group, Inc
    PO Box 532
    Storrs CT 06268-0532 USA
    Phone: 860-429-8402 x117 (M-F 8-5 EST)
    Fax: 860-487-1185
    Email: ----------------
    Web: http://www.kedit.com

    >
    >>>>>>> Original Message: >>>>>>>
    >
    > FYI Scroll down to the post titled "Kedit and Rexx"
    >
    >
    http://developers.slashdot.org/articl e.pl?sid=04/0 3/24/0034224&mode=thread&t
    id=126&tid=136&tid=156 &tid=187
    >
    > If you ever port kedit to Linux our department is good for 12
    > copies....