IBM Open Sources Object Rexx

dryeo writes "IBM has Open Sourced Object Rexx. IBM Announcement. Source code has been turned over to The Rexx Language Association under the Common Public Licence. Rexx is an interpreted language which has been included in platforms such as the Amiga, OS/2 and AIX, and most IBM mainframes. For a quick overview check out Rexx for everyone."

Comments

IBM's analysis to open software

[ClosedSource]

1. Can't make any money from it
2. Doesn't benefit competitiors
3. Open

Re:IBM's analysis to open software

[schpmock]

If only more companies would do this in similar situations...

Re:IBM's analysis to open software

[k98sven]

I disagree.

I think the main philosophy here is that IBM is not in the software business. It's not in the hardware business either. IBM is in the solutions business. That is, the hardware, OS, software, support and the whole enchilada that goes with it.

(Sure, IBM had its years with the PC, trying to dominate the retail market. But they failed at that, despite still making a pretty darn good laptop, they're not the force they once were.)

Out of this context of selling solutions.. it doesn't matter to them if the software is open source or not. Open source can even serve to increase their profit margins, saving them development costs.

IBM bought Transarc and open-sourced their AFS implementation (now OpenAFS).
Was that because it had no commercial value? I don't think so.. Transarc had made some money off it.

Rather, it was because it was a useful part of the solutions IBM offered. And they could make more money off it as such than selling it retail. (which I believe they still do, but it's hardly why they bought it)

Rexx, on the other hand.. Well, that's certainly a case of something they couldn't make money off to begin with.

Re:IBM's analysis to open software

[shrykk]

...they will be dependent on random strangers to fix things...

That's the whole open-source development model for you. You may think you wouldn't want to depend on random strangers, but when a comunity builds up, these "random strangers" will be the experts. "Random strangers" contribute a vast amount of value to a huge number of projects.

Re:IBM's analysis to open software

[Lovepump]

Not those of us who work in the IBM Mainframe world. REXX is still exceptionally heavily used...

Re:IBM's analysis to open software

[Bill_Mische]

...and this is a problem in what way exactly?

Ah Rexx, that brings back memories

[Megaweapon]

It had some odd quirks but it seemed like a pretty decent language. I worked in a shop that used it for some maintenance jobs, though nothing production. With the other languages out there now (and open) I don't think ORexx will catch any big waves, but it will probably help the odds-and-ends legacy shops. Hey, it couldn't hurt.

Rexx + KDE + DCOP

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking about this the other day. I used to write REXX scripts on the Amiga (way way back) to integrate a variety of applications. DCOP gives quite a bit of functionality there and fits very nicely into the REXX paradigm (without an application ever having to explicitly know REXX is talking to it).

You, sir,

[bnavarro]

Obviously have never had to program in CLIST

At my first computer programming job out of college, I was required to write scripts that processed JCL dumps. the scripting language of choice, back then, was CLIST. It was the most horrid "language" I have ever had to program in.

Fortunately, IBM had just released the first version of MVS/TSO that included support for REXX. Unaware that this was a recent thing, I grabbed the offical MVS/Rexx reference book (an internal IBM publication at the time, I believe), and took a week to self teach myself REXX, and ditched CLIST.

When IBM had their Great Layoff of '93, they purged all of the contractors first. As I wrapped up my project to hand over to my IBM supervisors, a look of shock and amazement came over their faces.

IBM'er: "You, you... programmed this in REXX!!!"

Me: "Yeah, so? It was a lot easier to do it that way."

IBM'er: "But, but... nobody here knows REXX!!! What are we going to do?!?!"

I was floored. Because I had a Computer Science degree, I was able to master a simple procedural programming language on my own, with one flimsy, poorly written internal reference document, within a week. The IBM'ers, on the other hand, had no degree, and were totally dependant on internal IBM training and certification in order to understand anything as "advanced" as a new programming language.

That, my friends, is the power of a good University degree.

Re:You, sir,

[julesh]

Because I had a Computer Science degree, I was able to master a simple procedural programming language on my own, with one flimsy, poorly written internal reference document, within a week
[...]
That, my friends, is the power of a good University degree.

No it isn't. Back in '92 or thereabouts, I was studying away to get the qualifications I would need to get onto a CS course. I learned to program in C, the first 'proper' language I had ever learned. (Until then, it was mostly BASIC, with a little assembly language)

I switched schools a few months later, and was informed that because the tutor at the new school didn't know C, I would need to do my project in Pascal.

So, I learned Pascal. Yes, it took me about a week. Remember this is a long time before I got my degree.

I think what this says is more about the kind of people who get degrees than what you learn on the degree course itself.

Re:All the miffed Rexx developers... IBM's history

[aricusmaximus]

Sounds like a classic case of "The Innovator's Dilemma" - unlike a startup who was willing to risk on a disruptive technology, there was no immediate corporate customer interested in spending big $$$ on your system, so your IBM managers did the sensible thing and pulled the plug.

IBM OSS Cred

[CaptainPinko]

I hope they don't think that they are going to get karma from open sourcing stuff that they just find laying around I mean sure it's useful but really it doesn't take anything of IBM to give it away. It's kinda like it's not really doing charity if you give something away that you were gonna throw away.