Quantcast

nrc.bat, nrc.sh, and nrc.cmd

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

nrc.bat, nrc.sh, and nrc.cmd

ThSITC
I just downloaded NetrexxC3.04GA, and do note an added complexity in
nrc.bat, for instance.

Frankly speaking, those simple *command scripts* are now nearly
*unreadable*.
I wonder if it would not be possible to go back to SIMPLICITY (keep it
simple, stupid) in version 4.00.

Shouldn''t most of those activities there beeing delayed to
org.NetRexx.process.NetRexxC ?

Advocatus diaboli,
Thomas Schneider.

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: NetRexxC.bat, NetRexxC.cmd, and NetRexxC.sh

ThSITC
Of course, I did talk about NetRexxC.bat, NetRexxC.cmd, and NetRexxC.sh
Sorry for the wrong header in previous mail.

My personal opinion is that the quick user guide should document

*One recommended and preferenced*

Installation for each environment, and only one.

Otherwise we are adding an unwanted and unneeded complication for the
first time NetRexx user.

Thomas.

PS: Anyway, 3.04 is alive, Congratulations, and Thanks to the whole Team.

=================================================================================

Am 03/07/2015 um 18:06 schrieb Thomas Schneider:

> I just downloaded NetrexxC3.04GA, and do note an added complexity in
> nrc.bat, for instance.
>
> Frankly speaking, those simple *command scripts* are now nearly
> *unreadable*.
> I wonder if it would not be possible to go back to SIMPLICITY (keep it
> simple, stupid) in version 4.00.
>
> Shouldn''t most of those activities there beeing delayed to
> org.NetRexx.process.NetRexxC ?
>
> Advocatus diaboli,
> Thomas Schneider.
>

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: NetRexxC.bat, NetRexxC.cmd, and NetRexxC.sh

rvjansen
Hi Thomas,

there is a reason they are called sample scripts in the documentation: there is no obligation or need to use them. I personally do not; not on a single platform.
Ironically, the added ‘complexity’ is there because of requests to make running NetRexx simpler, some recent ones even out of Austria, with broken classpaths. But as my granddad used to say, too helpful is often not.

All scripts point out in a clear way the ugliness of those languages versus the beauty of NetRexx - except for the NetRexxC.cmd version, but that is OS/2 only and mostly nostalgia. I just had a look into them to find out what it was exactly why there were needed again, and it was quite enough. And I failed to see it.

I thought about doing away with them all when NetRexx was open sourced - but they were there, I know some people use them because over the years they (mostly the windows versions) broke and needed some fixing.

Through different paths we seem to come to the same conclusion. What we need to do is have a good examination of what org.netrexx.process.NetRexxC is missing exactly. I would not know, but I don’t do a lot of -run, -exec or -args, and they might even work without the scripts. What I do know, is that a spectacular amount of time can be lost in the fine details of command line parsing in DOS, Windows, Unix and other shells, and it might be that these scripts are compensating for that in a way.

So if you can find that out for us, please enter those in the issue you opened for this, and we’ll have a look at it.

best regards,

René.





> On 3 jul. 2015, at 18:21, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Of course, I did talk about NetRexxC.bat, NetRexxC.cmd, and NetRexxC.sh
> Sorry for the wrong header in previous mail.
>
> My personal opinion is that the quick user guide should document
>
> *One recommended and preferenced*
>
> Installation for each environment, and only one.
>
> Otherwise we are adding an unwanted and unneeded complication for the first time NetRexx user.
>
> Thomas.
>
> PS: Anyway, 3.04 is alive, Congratulations, and Thanks to the whole Team.
>
> =================================================================================
>
> Am 03/07/2015 um 18:06 schrieb Thomas Schneider:
>> I just downloaded NetrexxC3.04GA, and do note an added complexity in nrc.bat, for instance.
>>
>> Frankly speaking, those simple *command scripts* are now nearly *unreadable*.
>> I wonder if it would not be possible to go back to SIMPLICITY (keep it simple, stupid) in version 4.00.
>>
>> Shouldn''t most of those activities there beeing delayed to org.NetRexx.process.NetRexxC ?
>>
>> Advocatus diaboli,
>> Thomas Schneider.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: NetRexxC.bat, NetRexxC.cmd, and NetRexxC.sh

ThSITC
I shall try then to run  'NetRexxC.cmd' thru with my ancient classic Rexx to NetRexx Converter (Rexx2Nrx)
and test it as a nrc.nrx so that we can get RID of all of them ?

Please let me know whether I should try this and also the name I shall use ('nrc'  is my current working favorite)

Assuming that all three batch files shall do the same, that could be the easiest relief, I think, and also
reduce maintenance efforts, hopefully ...

Thomas.
=====================================================================================

Am 03/07/2015 um 19:42 schrieb René Jansen:
Hi Thomas,

there is a reason they are called sample scripts in the documentation: there is no obligation or need to use them. I personally do not; not on a single platform.
Ironically, the added ‘complexity’ is there because of requests to make running NetRexx simpler, some recent ones even out of Austria, with broken classpaths. But as my granddad used to say, too helpful is often not.

All scripts point out in a clear way the ugliness of those languages versus the beauty of NetRexx - except for the NetRexxC.cmd version, but that is OS/2 only and mostly nostalgia. I just had a look into them to find out what it was exactly why there were needed again, and it was quite enough. And I failed to see it.

I thought about doing away with them all when NetRexx was open sourced - but they were there, I know some people use them because over the years they (mostly the windows versions) broke and needed some fixing.

Through different paths we seem to come to the same conclusion. What we need to do is have a good examination of what org.netrexx.process.NetRexxC is missing exactly. I would not know, but I don’t do a lot of -run, -exec or -args, and they might even work without the scripts. What I do know, is that a spectacular amount of time can be lost in the fine details of command line parsing in DOS, Windows, Unix and other shells, and it might be that these scripts are compensating for that in a way.

So if you can find that out for us, please enter those in the issue you opened for this, and we’ll have a look at it.

best regards,

René.





On 3 jul. 2015, at 18:21, Thomas Schneider [hidden email] wrote:

Of course, I did talk about NetRexxC.bat, NetRexxC.cmd, and NetRexxC.sh
Sorry for the wrong header in previous mail.

My personal opinion is that the quick user guide should document

*One recommended and preferenced*

Installation for each environment, and only one.

Otherwise we are adding an unwanted and unneeded complication for the first time NetRexx user.

Thomas.

PS: Anyway, 3.04 is alive, Congratulations, and Thanks to the whole Team.

=================================================================================

Am 03/07/2015 um 18:06 schrieb Thomas Schneider:
I just downloaded NetrexxC3.04GA, and do note an added complexity in nrc.bat, for instance.

Frankly speaking, those simple *command scripts* are now nearly *unreadable*.
I wonder if it would not be possible to go back to SIMPLICITY (keep it simple, stupid) in version 4.00.

Shouldn''t most of those activities there beeing delayed to org.NetRexx.process.NetRexxC ?

Advocatus diaboli,
Thomas Schneider.

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/



_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Loading...