bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (05/21/91)
In article <91136.075342CATHIE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> CATHIE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Cathie Dager) writes: | |I was pleased to see the interest in Bob O'Hara's "Why REXX Died" talk. It |was given first at the REXX Symposium for Developers and Users in June, 1990 |at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. We are grateful to Scott Ophof for |the electronic version which is here posted with permission: | | The views expressed in this presentation are the author's alone and not | those of Lotus Development Corporation. | | WHY REXX DIED (A Retrospective) | =============================== | | 1979 MFC begins work on REXX | 1983 VM/SP 3 released | 1984 "Modern Programming Using REXX" published | 1985 "The REXX Language" published | 1985 Personal REXX for MS-DOS from Mansfield Software released | 1987 REXX designated IBM SAA Procedures Language | 1989 REXX removed from OS/2 Standard Edition | 1990 IBM OS/2 1.2 Extended Edition released 1991 AREXX distributed as part of AmigaDos 2.0 | Why did REXX die? | ================= | | Key trends in 1990's computing | | - Increased heterogenity | - Increased connectivity | - Requirement for increased integration | | Integration takes place on desktop among applications | - Need for universal macro language / glue language | | Stage set for explosive growth of REXX | [...] Microsoft has NO influence in the Commodore Amiga world. The REXX implementation is mostly "vanilla", and many programs & applications are being retrofitted to communicate with its resources. At some point in the near future there will be some reasonable support for hetergenous system communication thru AREXX, so all REXX users should benefit from that... -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!utai!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "It's the death of the net as we know it (and I feel fine)" - R.A.M.
bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh) (05/23/91)
In article <103335@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: >In article <91136.075342CATHIE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> CATHIE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Cathie Dager) writes: >| >|I was pleased to see the interest in Bob O'Hara's "Why REXX Died" talk. It >|was given first at the REXX Symposium for Developers and Users in June, 1990 >|at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. We are grateful to Scott Ophof for >|the electronic version which is here posted with permission: >| >| The views expressed in this presentation are the author's alone and not >| those of Lotus Development Corporation. >| >| WHY REXX DIED (A Retrospective) >| =============================== >| >| 1979 MFC begins work on REXX >| 1983 VM/SP 3 released >| 1984 "Modern Programming Using REXX" published >| 1985 "The REXX Language" published >| 1985 Personal REXX for MS-DOS from Mansfield Software released >| 1987 REXX designated IBM SAA Procedures Language I'm not sure of the year, but REXX became the second (and preferred) procedure language under MVS right around '87. Anyone who's ever tried to do anything useful with a CLIST can understand why! >| 1989 REXX removed from OS/2 Standard Edition >| 1990 IBM OS/2 1.2 Extended Edition released > > 1991 AREXX distributed as part of AmigaDos 2.0 > [stuff deleted] > > Microsoft has NO influence in the Commodore > Amiga world. The REXX implementation is mostly > "vanilla", and many programs & applications > are being retrofitted to communicate with its > resources. At some point in the near future > there will be some reasonable support for > hetergenous system communication thru AREXX, > so all REXX users should benefit from that... MS has NO influence in the IBM mainframe world, either. The assumption that REXX is dead because Billionaire Bill doesn't want it around is erroneous... -- * Bill Cavanaugh bleys@tronsbox.xei.com * * * * Who woulda thought that by staying in one place * * I'd become a refugee? * * * * Doug and the Slugs *