NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/lang/rexx/844

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-31 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!noc.msc.net!uc.msc.edu!apctrc!wsc!mozart!zjlc12
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re:      Re: Blanks, REXX, and portability...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:19:29 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Amoco
Lines: 55

In article [e-mail],         Paul Russell <[e-mail]> () writes:
>On Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:30:35 LCL Anders Christensen said:
>.... lots of stuff deleted ...
>>Someone posted earlier that CMS programmers often tend to regard the
>>format of data as very constant, e.g. that the interesting portion of
>>the output from command XXX starts in column 42, and is 8 characters
>>long. That is very different from the Unix approach, in which the
>>exact column where things start is often not constant, and where the
>>number of whitespace-separated words in the output is used to find the
>>right data. The difference can be seen from these two examples
>>
>>    parse var foo 42 user +8
>>    parse var foo . . . user .
>>
>>Rexx is powerful enough to handle both approaches. But this will only
>>work on Unix machines, if Unix Rexx interpreters are allowed to
>>interpret all Unix' whitespace characters as blanks.
>.... more stuff deleted ...
>I've been following this discussion for several days and have found it
>both interesting and enlightening.  I was a little concerned about the
>general nature of the statement cited at the beginning of the excerpt
>above, however, I let it pass without comment, because I didn't feel
>that an editorial comment would add value to the discussion.  However,
>since it now appears that the original statement has been accepted as
>gospel, I think that it's time to add my 2 cents worth, to wit: *SOME*
>CMS REXX programmers (including me) do parse *SOME* things on the basis
>of hard-coded "column" numbers, *IF* the format of the data is constant.
>However, it has been my experience (however limited you might perceive
>that to be) that the format of the data is seldom constant, so, it seems
>that *MOST* CMS REXX programmers parse data on the basis of white-space-
>delimited words and/or the presence of known constants at least as often
>as they parse data on the basis of hard-coded "column numbers".  Jumping
>to the conclusion that *ALL* CMS REXX programmers have an "80-column
>card" mindset is just about as valid as jumping to the conclusion that
>*ALL* U**X programmers are (insert your favorite pejorative here).  8-)
>I can hardly remember the last time that I used an 80-column card, but
>I'm sure that I was writing a grocery list on the back.  8-)  pdr

Whoa! I recant!  When I originally posted that "observation" I didn't mean
to typecast CMS programmers as inflexible cc oriented coders.  I apologize
if you took it that way.  However, I still hold that there *tends to be* a
difference in mindsets, paradigms, whatever you call it, between CMS
programmers and Unix programmers. I think this is right and natural, CMS and
Un*x are different after all.  Some of us are (me) are still learning those
differences.  If I'd meant that observation as an insult, I would have to
include myself as a target.  I've programmed on CMS for a long time.

Ok, where are the marshmallows?!?!?  Drat, hot dogs will have to do.  Alright,
I'm ready, flame away!   I promise, "I will never, ever, ever again say anything
that might incite opsys riots", I promise, I promise, I promise... :=)

---
Jerry Campbell   reply to: [e-mail]
Amoco Corp. ISD  SSS/Graphics
Houston, Tx.     713/556-7036