Re: Load CL variables from SQL example

"MIDRANGE-L" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 08/20/2019
12:02:39 PM:

It's partly a technical problem but also partly a mindset problem.

The parameter-passing mechanism that *PGM objects have can't easily be
used to get information back from Rexx (or Python or whatever), BUT
(1) it is quite easy for Rexx (or Python or whatever) to pass
parameters to and receive them back from *PGM objects and (2) it is
quite easy to pass information back and forth IN EITHER DIRECTION
using means other than parameters.

Remember that Rexx was not conceived as or designed to be a "peer" of
CL and RPG. It was meant to be a scripting language, in the vein of
bash, Perl, or Python. And in that mission it succeeds admirably,
holding its own against those newer languages.

I disagree. The issue is interoperability. Yeah, those other
languages play *very* well with themselves but do *not* play well with
others. We knew that and *that* is the issue. It is not a question of
whether there are *ways* to work around the issues. It is the fact that
those issues exist.

Back in the day, we could spool output to a database file or even
to a spool file and then read that junk back in. Yeah, there was a way to
work around the fact that an API or service did not exist to give direct
access to the data. But, then IBM added such APIs or added SQL services
and we are better off for it. It was not a mind-set issue. There *is* a
better *technical* way.

The simplest solution tot he REXX issue is if the STRREXPRC
command had a RTNVAL parameter (like the CALLPRC command does) so that
REXX could more directly pass back a RETURN value to the caller. Sure,
there is QREXQ that allows passing more information in both directions.
But, as mentioned by Buck, that presents problems, too. The real point is
that IBM made it easy to pass information *to* a REXX procedure (as parms)
but did not provide that *easy* (parms) means of getting information back
*from* a REXX procedure.

So, is REXX a different animal from CL and RPG? Sure, but we knew
that going in. Does that mean there are technical reasons why things
couldn't be made easier? No.


Sincerely,

Dave Clark