[RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

Rony G. Flatscher
Dear all:

while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good news is, that it works! :)

There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by the new module system with the
advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)

One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This means that one needs to use the
64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external 32-bit Rexx function libraries
would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit Rexx function replacement libraries
then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves as a huge external ooRexx library
you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the functionality of the then foregone
32-bit libraries!

For the time being you could still {download and | continue  to} use Java 1.8/8 for which 32- and
64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java, then you will be able to continue
to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function libraries.

---rony

P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new Java 9 module system rules such
that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10) get resolved. Still that version
of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of Java, starting with Java 1.6/6.

_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

LesK
Administrator
Will there  be a 32 bit version of Java 9, or have they decided to close
the door on backward compatibility?

Les

On 1/4/2018 1:54 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:

> Dear all:
>
> while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good news is, that it works! :)
>
> There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by the new module system with the
> advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)
>
> One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This means that one needs to use the
> 64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external 32-bit Rexx function libraries
> would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit Rexx function replacement libraries
> then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves as a huge external ooRexx library
> you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the functionality of the then foregone
> 32-bit libraries!
>
> For the time being you could still {download and | continue  to} use Java 1.8/8 for which 32- and
> 64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java, then you will be able to continue
> to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function libraries.
>
> ---rony
>
> P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new Java 9 module system rules such
> that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10) get resolved. Still that version
> of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of Java, starting with Java 1.6/6.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
> http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
>
_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

Jim Mehl
Does anyone still think that Java is important these days? I kind of
thought that Python and JavaScript were taking over. :-)

Jim


On 1/4/2018 8:27 PM, Les Koehler wrote:

> Will there  be a 32 bit version of Java 9, or have they decided to
> close the door on backward compatibility?
>
> Les
>
> On 1/4/2018 1:54 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>> Dear all:
>>
>> while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good
>> news is, that it works! :)
>>
>> There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by the
>> new module system with the
>> advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)
>>
>> One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This means
>> that one needs to use the
>> 64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external
>> 32-bit Rexx function libraries
>> would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit Rexx
>> function replacement libraries
>> then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves as
>> a huge external ooRexx library
>> you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the
>> functionality of the then foregone
>> 32-bit libraries!
>>
>> For the time being you could still {download and | continue to} use
>> Java 1.8/8 for which 32- and
>> 64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java,
>> then you will be able to continue
>> to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function
>> libraries.
>>
>> ---rony
>>
>> P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new Java
>> 9 module system rules such
>> that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10) get
>> resolved. Still that version
>> of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of
>> Java, starting with Java 1.6/6.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
>> http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
> http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members

_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

LesK
Administrator
According to  this, it's still #1, but  declining. I searched on: java
popularity with Google. Many hits! Try it yourself. Pointless to discuss
it here since Rony's BSF4ooRexx uses it to widen the scope of both Java
and ooRexx.

   http://pypl.github.io/PYPL.html

Les

On 1/5/2018 12:01 AM, Jim Mehl wrote:

> Does anyone still think that Java is important these days? I kind of
> thought that Python and JavaScript were taking over. :-)
>
> Jim
>
>
> On 1/4/2018 8:27 PM, Les Koehler wrote:
>> Will there  be a 32 bit version of Java 9, or have they decided to
>> close the door on backward compatibility?
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On 1/4/2018 1:54 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>> Dear all:
>>>
>>> while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good
>>> news is, that it works! :)
>>>
>>> There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by the
>>> new module system with the
>>> advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)
>>>
>>> One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This means
>>> that one needs to use the
>>> 64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external
>>> 32-bit Rexx function libraries
>>> would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit Rexx
>>> function replacement libraries
>>> then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves as
>>> a huge external ooRexx library
>>> you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the
>>> functionality of the then foregone
>>> 32-bit libraries!
>>>
>>> For the time being you could still {download and | continue to} use
>>> Java 1.8/8 for which 32- and
>>> 64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java,
>>> then you will be able to continue
>>> to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function
>>> libraries.
>>>
>>> ---rony
>>>
>>> P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new Java
>>> 9 module system rules such
>>> that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10) get
>>> resolved. Still that version
>>> of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of
>>> Java, starting with Java 1.6/6.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
>>> http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
>> http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
>
> _______________________________________________
> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
> http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

Rony G. Flatscher
In reply to this post by LesK
Les:

On 05.01.2018 05:27, Les Koehler wrote:
> Will there  be a 32 bit version of Java 9, or have they decided to close the door on backward
> compatibility?
It would be feasible to create oneself's 32 bit version from the OpenJDK project (the opensource
version of Java which is used by Oracle, IBM and others to create Java), if really necessary.
Currently, it will take time until Java 9 is really deployed on a large scale. (Maybe others
will/have done that already.)

---rony

>
> On 1/4/2018 1:54 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>> Dear all:
>>
>> while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good news is, that it works! :)
>>
>> There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by the new module system with the
>> advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)
>>
>> One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This means that one needs to use the
>> 64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external 32-bit Rexx function libraries
>> would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit Rexx function replacement libraries
>> then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves as a huge external ooRexx library
>> you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the functionality of the then foregone
>> 32-bit libraries!
>>
>> For the time being you could still {download and | continue  to} use Java 1.8/8 for which 32- and
>> 64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java, then you will be able to continue
>> to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function libraries.
>>
>> ---rony
>>
>> P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new Java 9 module system rules such
>> that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10) get resolved. Still that version
>> of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of Java, starting with Java 1.6/6.

_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

Rony G. Flatscher
In reply to this post by Jim Mehl
On 05.01.2018 06:01, Jim Mehl wrote:
> Does anyone still think that Java is important these days? I kind of thought that Python and
> JavaScript were taking over. :-)
Well, if you ask the professionals they will tell you, that Java has been and keeps to be important.
Especially in the professional environment. Even if the development of Java had stopped (it has not,
Java 10 is eagerly worked upon) it would be around another decade or two in the professional
environment.

Add to that, that Google's Android is in essence Linux plus Java. (Unless, of course, you think
Android is not important these days. ;) )

Even if Java was not important at all to you, me or journalists, the sole fact that it exists, has
an incredible huge, platform independent (!) class library (solving probably every problem that can
be solved in software) and can be exploited, is an incredible value in its sole right.

BSF4ooRexx is a (camouflaging) bridge to make this wealth of tested and available Java class
libraries available to ooRexx transparently, as if they were implemented in ooRexx and not Java!

---rony


>
>
> On 1/4/2018 8:27 PM, Les Koehler wrote:
>> Will there  be a 32 bit version of Java 9, or have they decided to close the door on backward
>> compatibility?
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On 1/4/2018 1:54 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>> Dear all:
>>>
>>> while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good news is, that it works! :)
>>>
>>> There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by the new module system with the
>>> advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)
>>>
>>> One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This means that one needs to use the
>>> 64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external 32-bit Rexx function libraries
>>> would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit Rexx function replacement libraries
>>> then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves as a huge external ooRexx
>>> library
>>> you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the functionality of the then foregone
>>> 32-bit libraries!
>>>
>>> For the time being you could still {download and | continue to} use Java 1.8/8 for which 32- and
>>> 64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java, then you will be able to continue
>>> to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function libraries.
>>>
>>> ---rony
>>>
>>> P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new Java 9 module system rules such
>>> that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10) get resolved. Still that version
>>> of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of Java, starting with Java 1.6/6.

_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

Rony G. Flatscher
In reply to this post by LesK
Ad: "BSF4ooRexx uses Java to widen the scope of both Java and ooRexx".

You may want to look through the slides of last year's Rexx symposium presentation entitled "JavaFX
for ooRexx - Creating Powerful Portable GUIs " on <http://www.rexxla.org/events/2017/schedule.html>
which introduces the ability to ooRexx to use JavaFX to create (even the most complex) GUIs with
ScreenBuilder but program/code in Rexx/ooRexx only!

The RexxLA Rexx symposiae that took place in the past years carry different topics in the context of
BSF4ooRexx. Just take BSF4ooRexx as an "external Rexx function library" which makes all of Java
available immediately. 

Taking advantage of Java means, that your Rexx programs become platform independent, no matter
whether they use GUIs, SSL or even OpenOffice/LibreOffice (which have Java APIs).

---rony

On 05.01.2018 07:49, Les Koehler wrote:

> According to  this, it's still #1, but  declining. I searched on: java popularity with Google.
> Many hits! Try it yourself. Pointless to discuss it here since Rony's BSF4ooRexx uses it to widen
> the scope of both Java and ooRexx.
>
>   http://pypl.github.io/PYPL.html
>
> Les
>
> On 1/5/2018 12:01 AM, Jim Mehl wrote:
>> Does anyone still think that Java is important these days? I kind of thought that Python and
>> JavaScript were taking over. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On 1/4/2018 8:27 PM, Les Koehler wrote:
>>> Will there  be a 32 bit version of Java 9, or have they decided to close the door on backward
>>> compatibility?
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On 1/4/2018 1:54 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>>> Dear all:
>>>>
>>>> while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good news is, that it works! :)
>>>>
>>>> There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by the new module system with the
>>>> advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)
>>>>
>>>> One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This means that one needs to use the
>>>> 64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external 32-bit Rexx function libraries
>>>> would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit Rexx function replacement libraries
>>>> then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves as a huge external ooRexx
>>>> library
>>>> you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the functionality of the then
>>>> foregone
>>>> 32-bit libraries!
>>>>
>>>> For the time being you could still {download and | continue to} use Java 1.8/8 for which 32- and
>>>> 64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java, then you will be able to
>>>> continue
>>>> to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function libraries.
>>>>
>>>> ---rony
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new Java 9 module system rules such
>>>> that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10) get resolved. Still that version
>>>> of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of Java, starting with Java 1.6/6.

_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

LesK
Administrator
In reply to this post by Rony G. Flatscher
While exploring popularity, this link

  http://pypl.github.io/PYPL.html

mentions Kotlin as a growing language for Java. Has it penetrated the
education world? From the description, it sounds like it  would make
Java easier to use.

Les

On 1/5/2018 6:54 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:

> On 05.01.2018 06:01, Jim Mehl wrote:
>> Does anyone still think that Java is important these days? I kind of thought that Python and
>> JavaScript were taking over. :-)
> Well, if you ask the professionals they will tell you, that Java has been and keeps to be important.
> Especially in the professional environment. Even if the development of Java had stopped (it has not,
> Java 10 is eagerly worked upon) it would be around another decade or two in the professional
> environment.
>
> Add to that, that Google's Android is in essence Linux plus Java. (Unless, of course, you think
> Android is not important these days. ;) )
>
> Even if Java was not important at all to you, me or journalists, the sole fact that it exists, has
> an incredible huge, platform independent (!) class library (solving probably every problem that can
> be solved in software) and can be exploited, is an incredible value in its sole right.
>
> BSF4ooRexx is a (camouflaging) bridge to make this wealth of tested and available Java class
> libraries available to ooRexx transparently, as if they were implemented in ooRexx and not Java!
>
> ---rony
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/4/2018 8:27 PM, Les Koehler wrote:
>>> Will there  be a 32 bit version of Java 9, or have they decided to close the door on backward
>>> compatibility?
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On 1/4/2018 1:54 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>>> Dear all:
>>>>
>>>> while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good news is, that it works! :)
>>>>
>>>> There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by the new module system with the
>>>> advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)
>>>>
>>>> One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This means that one needs to use the
>>>> 64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external 32-bit Rexx function libraries
>>>> would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit Rexx function replacement libraries
>>>> then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves as a huge external ooRexx
>>>> library
>>>> you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the functionality of the then foregone
>>>> 32-bit libraries!
>>>>
>>>> For the time being you could still {download and | continue to} use Java 1.8/8 for which 32- and
>>>> 64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java, then you will be able to continue
>>>> to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function libraries.
>>>>
>>>> ---rony
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new Java 9 module system rules such
>>>> that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10) get resolved. Still that version
>>>> of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of Java, starting with Java 1.6/6.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
> http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
>
_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

Rony G. Flatscher
On 06.01.2018 04:59, Les Koehler wrote:
> While exploring popularity, this link
>
>  http://pypl.github.io/PYPL.html
This tries to measure popularity on github, which mostlikely is  not representative.

> mentions Kotlin as a growing language for Java. Has it penetrated the education world? From the
> description, it sounds like it  would make Java easier to use.
Just look at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotlin_(programming_language)> and judge for yourself.

NetRexx has made Java Rexxish for many, many years. It just lacks the mind-share that Kotlin and all
other "latest, greates new programming languages" gain via good marketing and journalists who just
carry on hypes without challenging them.

Having said that, Kotlin like ooRexx and many other programming languages have penetrated (and will
penetrate) the educational world (which is not necessarily significant for the real world). IMHO the
difference among the many programming languages in this context is mind-sharing, which is driven by
marketing (hypes).

---rony

>
>
> On 1/5/2018 6:54 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>> On 05.01.2018 06:01, Jim Mehl wrote:
>>> Does anyone still think that Java is important these days? I kind of thought that Python and
>>> JavaScript were taking over. :-)
>> Well, if you ask the professionals they will tell you, that Java has been and keeps to be important.
>> Especially in the professional environment. Even if the development of Java had stopped (it has not,
>> Java 10 is eagerly worked upon) it would be around another decade or two in the professional
>> environment.
>>
>> Add to that, that Google's Android is in essence Linux plus Java. (Unless, of course, you think
>> Android is not important these days. ;) )
>>
>> Even if Java was not important at all to you, me or journalists, the sole fact that it exists, has
>> an incredible huge, platform independent (!) class library (solving probably every problem that can
>> be solved in software) and can be exploited, is an incredible value in its sole right.
>>
>> BSF4ooRexx is a (camouflaging) bridge to make this wealth of tested and available Java class
>> libraries available to ooRexx transparently, as if they were implemented in ooRexx and not Java!
>>
>> ---rony
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/4/2018 8:27 PM, Les Koehler wrote:
>>>> Will there  be a 32 bit version of Java 9, or have they decided to close the door on backward
>>>> compatibility?
>>>>
>>>> Les
>>>>
>>>> On 1/4/2018 1:54 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>>>> Dear all:
>>>>>
>>>>> while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good news is, that it works! :)
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by the new module system with the
>>>>> advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This means that one needs to use the
>>>>> 64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external 32-bit Rexx function libraries
>>>>> would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit Rexx function replacement
>>>>> libraries
>>>>> then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves as a huge external ooRexx
>>>>> library
>>>>> you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the functionality of the then
>>>>> foregone
>>>>> 32-bit libraries!
>>>>>
>>>>> For the time being you could still {download and | continue to} use Java 1.8/8 for which 32-
>>>>> and
>>>>> 64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java, then you will be able to
>>>>> continue
>>>>> to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function libraries.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---rony
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new Java 9 module system rules such
>>>>> that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10) get resolved. Still that
>>>>> version
>>>>> of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of Java, starting with Java 1.6/6.

_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

Gil Barmwater-3
In reply to this post by LesK
Making Java easier to use has been attempted by many people, not just
the Kotlin developers.  See the following link to get an idea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JVM_languages

Gil
On 1/5/2018 10:59 PM, Les Koehler wrote:

> While exploring popularity, this link
>
>  http://pypl.github.io/PYPL.html
>
> mentions Kotlin as a growing language for Java. Has it penetrated the
> education world? From the description, it sounds like it would make
> Java easier to use.
>
> Les
>
> On 1/5/2018 6:54 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>> On 05.01.2018 06:01, Jim Mehl wrote:
>>> Does anyone still think that Java is important these days? I kind of
>>> thought that Python and
>>> JavaScript were taking over. :-)
>> Well, if you ask the professionals they will tell you, that Java has
>> been and keeps to be important.
>> Especially in the professional environment. Even if the development
>> of Java had stopped (it has not,
>> Java 10 is eagerly worked upon) it would be around another decade or
>> two in the professional
>> environment.
>>
>> Add to that, that Google's Android is in essence Linux plus Java.
>> (Unless, of course, you think
>> Android is not important these days. ;) )
>>
>> Even if Java was not important at all to you, me or journalists, the
>> sole fact that it exists, has
>> an incredible huge, platform independent (!) class library (solving
>> probably every problem that can
>> be solved in software) and can be exploited, is an incredible value
>> in its sole right.
>>
>> BSF4ooRexx is a (camouflaging) bridge to make this wealth of tested
>> and available Java class
>> libraries available to ooRexx transparently, as if they were
>> implemented in ooRexx and not Java!
>>
>> ---rony
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/4/2018 8:27 PM, Les Koehler wrote:
>>>> Will there  be a 32 bit version of Java 9, or have they decided to
>>>> close the door on backward
>>>> compatibility?
>>>>
>>>> Les
>>>>
>>>> On 1/4/2018 1:54 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>>>> Dear all:
>>>>>
>>>>> while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good
>>>>> news is, that it works! :)
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by
>>>>> the new module system with the
>>>>> advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This
>>>>> means that one needs to use the
>>>>> 64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external
>>>>> 32-bit Rexx function libraries
>>>>> would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit
>>>>> Rexx function replacement libraries
>>>>> then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves
>>>>> as a huge external ooRexx
>>>>> library
>>>>> you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the
>>>>> functionality of the then foregone
>>>>> 32-bit libraries!
>>>>>
>>>>> For the time being you could still {download and | continue to}
>>>>> use Java 1.8/8 for which 32- and
>>>>> 64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java,
>>>>> then you will be able to continue
>>>>> to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function
>>>>> libraries.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---rony
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new
>>>>> Java 9 module system rules such
>>>>> that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10)
>>>>> get resolved. Still that version
>>>>> of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of
>>>>> Java, starting with Java 1.6/6.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
>> http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
> http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members

--
Gil Barmwater

_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

LesK
Administrator
In reply to this post by Rony G. Flatscher
Please see below.

Les

On 1/6/2018 6:30 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
> On 06.01.2018 04:59, Les Koehler wrote:
>> While exploring popularity, this link
>>
>>  http://pypl.github.io/PYPL.html
> This tries to measure popularity on github, which mostlikely is  not representative.
>
Incorrect! github is just where the *presentation* code lives. You have
to actually _read_ the whole link to find out where they get the data
and what they conclude from it.

>> mentions Kotlin as a growing language for Java. Has it penetrated the education world? From the
>> description, it sounds like it  would make Java easier to use.
> Just look at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotlin_(programming_language)> and judge for yourself.
>
> NetRexx has made Java Rexxish for many, many years. It just lacks the mind-share that Kotlin and all
> other "latest, greates new programming languages" gain via good marketing and journalists who just
> carry on hypes without challenging them.
>
> Having said that, Kotlin like ooRexx and many other programming languages have penetrated (and will
> penetrate) the educational world (which is not necessarily significant for the real world). IMHO the
> difference among the many programming languages in this context is mind-sharing, which is driven by
> marketing (hypes).
>
> ---rony
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/5/2018 6:54 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>> On 05.01.2018 06:01, Jim Mehl wrote:
>>>> Does anyone still think that Java is important these days? I kind of thought that Python and
>>>> JavaScript were taking over. :-)
>>> Well, if you ask the professionals they will tell you, that Java has been and keeps to be important.
>>> Especially in the professional environment. Even if the development of Java had stopped (it has not,
>>> Java 10 is eagerly worked upon) it would be around another decade or two in the professional
>>> environment.
>>>
>>> Add to that, that Google's Android is in essence Linux plus Java. (Unless, of course, you think
>>> Android is not important these days. ;) )
>>>
>>> Even if Java was not important at all to you, me or journalists, the sole fact that it exists, has
>>> an incredible huge, platform independent (!) class library (solving probably every problem that can
>>> be solved in software) and can be exploited, is an incredible value in its sole right.
>>>
>>> BSF4ooRexx is a (camouflaging) bridge to make this wealth of tested and available Java class
>>> libraries available to ooRexx transparently, as if they were implemented in ooRexx and not Java!
>>>
>>> ---rony
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/4/2018 8:27 PM, Les Koehler wrote:
>>>>> Will there  be a 32 bit version of Java 9, or have they decided to close the door on backward
>>>>> compatibility?
>>>>>
>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/4/2018 1:54 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good news is, that it works! :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by the new module system with the
>>>>>> advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This means that one needs to use the
>>>>>> 64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external 32-bit Rexx function libraries
>>>>>> would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit Rexx function replacement
>>>>>> libraries
>>>>>> then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves as a huge external ooRexx
>>>>>> library
>>>>>> you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the functionality of the then
>>>>>> foregone
>>>>>> 32-bit libraries!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the time being you could still {download and | continue to} use Java 1.8/8 for which 32-
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> 64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java, then you will be able to
>>>>>> continue
>>>>>> to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function libraries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---rony
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new Java 9 module system rules such
>>>>>> that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10) get resolved. Still that
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of Java, starting with Java 1.6/6.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
> http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
>
_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

LesK
Administrator
In reply to this post by Gil Barmwater-3
Those who are interested in Java will find that link informative, I'm sure.

Les

On 1/6/2018 9:52 AM, Gil Barmwater wrote:

> Making Java easier to use has been attempted by many people, not just
> the Kotlin developers.  See the following link to get an idea:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JVM_languages
>
> Gil
> On 1/5/2018 10:59 PM, Les Koehler wrote:
>> While exploring popularity, this link
>>
>>  http://pypl.github.io/PYPL.html
>>
>> mentions Kotlin as a growing language for Java. Has it penetrated the
>> education world? From the description, it sounds like it would make
>> Java easier to use.
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On 1/5/2018 6:54 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>> On 05.01.2018 06:01, Jim Mehl wrote:
>>>> Does anyone still think that Java is important these days? I kind of
>>>> thought that Python and
>>>> JavaScript were taking over. :-)
>>> Well, if you ask the professionals they will tell you, that Java has
>>> been and keeps to be important.
>>> Especially in the professional environment. Even if the development
>>> of Java had stopped (it has not,
>>> Java 10 is eagerly worked upon) it would be around another decade or
>>> two in the professional
>>> environment.
>>>
>>> Add to that, that Google's Android is in essence Linux plus Java.
>>> (Unless, of course, you think
>>> Android is not important these days. ;) )
>>>
>>> Even if Java was not important at all to you, me or journalists, the
>>> sole fact that it exists, has
>>> an incredible huge, platform independent (!) class library (solving
>>> probably every problem that can
>>> be solved in software) and can be exploited, is an incredible value
>>> in its sole right.
>>>
>>> BSF4ooRexx is a (camouflaging) bridge to make this wealth of tested
>>> and available Java class
>>> libraries available to ooRexx transparently, as if they were
>>> implemented in ooRexx and not Java!
>>>
>>> ---rony
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/4/2018 8:27 PM, Les Koehler wrote:
>>>>> Will there  be a 32 bit version of Java 9, or have they decided
>>>>> to close the door on backward
>>>>> compatibility?
>>>>>
>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/4/2018 1:54 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good
>>>>>> news is, that it works! :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by
>>>>>> the new module system with the
>>>>>> advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This
>>>>>> means that one needs to use the
>>>>>> 64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external
>>>>>> 32-bit Rexx function libraries
>>>>>> would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit
>>>>>> Rexx function replacement libraries
>>>>>> then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves
>>>>>> as a huge external ooRexx
>>>>>> library
>>>>>> you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the
>>>>>> functionality of the then foregone
>>>>>> 32-bit libraries!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the time being you could still {download and | continueÂ
>>>>>> to} use Java 1.8/8 for which 32- and
>>>>>> 64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java,
>>>>>> then you will be able to continue
>>>>>> to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function
>>>>>> libraries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---rony
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new
>>>>>> Java 9 module system rules such
>>>>>> that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10)
>>>>>> get resolved. Still that version
>>>>>> of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of
>>>>>> Java, starting with Java 1.6/6.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
>>> http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
>> http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
>
_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RexxLA] Ad BSF4ooRexx and Java 9

Rony G. Flatscher
In reply to this post by LesK
Les,

On 06.01.2018 22:57, Les Koehler wrote:
> Please see below.
a last word on the statistics: the statistics are drawn from the assumption, that the number of
tutorials sought via Google represents the market share and market importance of programming
languages: "The PYPL PopularitY of Programming Language Index is created by analyzing how often
language tutorials are searched on Google." (cf. <http://pypl.github.io/PYPL.html >).  Also
increases and decreases (last column) seem to be related to the relative share, e.g. Kotlin's share
on total is 0.8%, but its increase is given by 1.0%, so its previous year share was mostlikely a
total share of 0.79%, yet the pictures indicate that Kotlin's share has increased tremendeously (six
green uprising arrows in the "Change" column). (It would be also interesting to e.g. learn about the
standard deviation and other indicators.)

If you erased Rexx (not appearing in these statistics at all) from the computers on this world, the
world would come to a halt within minutes.  The same cannot be said about e.g. Kotlin at this point
in time. ;)

---

A last word on Java: in the context of BSF4ooRexx Java does not play a role as a programming
language that Rexx programmers need to master and use themselves. Rather Java plays the same role
here as (mainframe) Assembler, C or C++ for creating Rexx exits/function packages. The Rexx
programmers only need to read and understand the documentation,  they do not need to learn
Assembler, C or C++ in order to use the external Rexx functions.

---rony



>
>
> On 1/6/2018 6:30 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>> On 06.01.2018 04:59, Les Koehler wrote:
>>> While exploring popularity, this link
>>>
>>>  http://pypl.github.io/PYPL.html
>> This tries to measure popularity on github, which mostlikely is  not representative.
>>
> Incorrect! github is just where the *presentation* code lives. You have to actually _read_ the
> whole link to find out where they get the data and what they conclude from it.
>
>>> mentions Kotlin as a growing language for Java. Has it penetrated the education world? From the
>>> description, it sounds like it  would make Java easier to use.
>> Just look at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotlin_(programming_language)> and judge for yourself.
>>
>> NetRexx has made Java Rexxish for many, many years. It just lacks the mind-share that Kotlin and all
>> other "latest, greates new programming languages" gain via good marketing and journalists who just
>> carry on hypes without challenging them.
>>
>> Having said that, Kotlin like ooRexx and many other programming languages have penetrated (and will
>> penetrate) the educational world (which is not necessarily significant for the real world). IMHO the
>> difference among the many programming languages in this context is mind-sharing, which is driven by
>> marketing (hypes).
>>
>> ---rony
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/5/2018 6:54 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>>> On 05.01.2018 06:01, Jim Mehl wrote:
>>>>> Does anyone still think that Java is important these days? I kind of thought that Python and
>>>>> JavaScript were taking over. :-)
>>>> Well, if you ask the professionals they will tell you, that Java has been and keeps to be
>>>> important.
>>>> Especially in the professional environment. Even if the development of Java had stopped (it has
>>>> not,
>>>> Java 10 is eagerly worked upon) it would be around another decade or two in the professional
>>>> environment.
>>>>
>>>> Add to that, that Google's Android is in essence Linux plus Java. (Unless, of course, you think
>>>> Android is not important these days. ;) )
>>>>
>>>> Even if Java was not important at all to you, me or journalists, the sole fact that it exists, has
>>>> an incredible huge, platform independent (!) class library (solving probably every problem that
>>>> can
>>>> be solved in software) and can be exploited, is an incredible value in its sole right.
>>>>
>>>> BSF4ooRexx is a (camouflaging) bridge to make this wealth of tested and available Java class
>>>> libraries available to ooRexx transparently, as if they were implemented in ooRexx and not Java!
>>>>
>>>> ---rony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/4/2018 8:27 PM, Les Koehler wrote:
>>>>>> Will there  be a 32 bit version of Java 9, or have they decided to close the door on backward
>>>>>> compatibility?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/4/2018 1:54 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear all:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> while testing the current drop of BSF4ooRexx with Java 9 the good news is, that it works! :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are a few spots where Java 9 will output warnings caused by the new module system with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> advice to contact the authors, which one can live with. ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing on Windows: Java 9 is only available in 64-bit. This means that one needs to use the
>>>>>>> 64-Bit version of ooRexx with BSF4ooRexx! As a result no external 32-bit Rexx function
>>>>>>> libraries
>>>>>>> would work with 64-bit ooRexx. If there are no external 64-bit Rexx function replacement
>>>>>>> libraries
>>>>>>> then you might get troubles. As with BSF4ooRexx all of Java serves as a huge external ooRexx
>>>>>>> library
>>>>>>> you mostlikely would be able to find/create replacements for the functionality of the then
>>>>>>> foregone
>>>>>>> 32-bit libraries!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the time being you could still {download and | continue to} use Java 1.8/8 for
>>>>>>> which 32-
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> 64-bit versions exist. If you install the 32-bit version of Java, then you will be able to
>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>> to use the 32-bit ooRexx and all 32-bit external Rexx function libraries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---rony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P.S.: If possible, I will rework BSF4ooRexx to adhere to the new Java 9 module system rules
>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>> that these warnings (which will be turned into errors in Java 10) get resolved. Still that
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>> of BSF4ooRexx should continue to be usable on earlier versions of Java, starting with Java
>>>>>>> 1.6/6.
>>
_______________________________________________
rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
http://rexxla.org/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members