On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So far as I know, Rexx is script, is not compiled, and runs on the i.
I guess I don't get your point.
Rexx is indeed interpreted script, and fills a somewhat similar role
as Perl does on Unix and Unixlike systems. Except that a vastly
greater percentage of Unix developers use Perl than IBM i developers
use Rexx.
My point is that sjl seemed to be saying that CLPs from older systems
can always be restored on newer systems and run perfectly fine. But
this isn't true.
I had a secondary point which is that on systems other than IBM i, the
issue of "restoring CLP objects" wouldn't even come up, because on
those other systems, people use shell scripts to do what most i people
use CLPs for.
If everyone used Rexx scripts instead of compiled CLP objects, then
sure, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. (Though honestly,
for scripting, I think most people will find it easier to deal with
stream files than with members within source physical files.) If
everyone developed all their IBM i apps in IFS, with DB2 "merely"
serving as the database (which, granted, some people do, and it seems
more and more are doing), then we also wouldn't be having the QSYS vs.
hierarchical directory structure discussion either.
The unsaid point that I was really after, and should have said
explicitly, was that it's not productive to bash other platforms. sjl
was specifically trying to make a boastful claim directed against
perceived IBM i detractors. His claim was both false and
antagonistic.
John
midrange.com
