Just a passing question

Discussion in 'Java' started by -, Jun 2, 2005.

  1. -

    - Guest

    If IBM is smart enough to create SWT which involves tons of coding, why
    didn't they bother to create a programming language to rival Java and
    C#? Or do they already have but it's proprietary and only used for
    rocket science applications and the like where it's more economical?
     
    -, Jun 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. -

    Ross Bamford Guest

    On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 13:05 +0800, - wrote:
    > If IBM is smart enough to create SWT which involves tons of coding, why
    > didn't they bother to create a programming language to rival Java and
    > C#? Or do they already have but it's proprietary and only used for
    > rocket science applications and the like where it's more economical?


    Because they're not good at that kind of thing, and (unlike Microsoft)
    willing to admit it, perhaps?

    ;)

    --
    ++ Ross A. Bamford in ++
    Roscopeco Open Tech ++ Open Source + Java + Apache + 2EE
    http://roscopeco.co.uk/ in
     
    Ross Bamford, Jun 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. - coughed up:
    > If IBM is smart enough to create SWT which involves tons of coding,
    > why didn't they bother to create a programming language to rival Java
    > and C#? Or do they already have but it's proprietary and only used for
    > rocket science applications and the like where it's more economical?



    "smart enough". Oh man, where do I start....

    Essentially you have to understand that creating a library or subsystem in a
    language and creating the language itself are two different disciplines.

    Both are done by software engineering designers of various calibre, but the
    latter requires a far deeper understanding of computer science and its
    effects than the former does.


    --
    "Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity!
    Two weeks from everywhere!"
     
    Thomas G. Marshall, Jun 2, 2005
    #3
  4. -

    David Segall Guest

    - <> wrote:

    >If IBM is smart enough to create SWT which involves tons of coding, why
    >didn't they bother to create a programming language to rival Java and
    >C#? Or do they already have but it's proprietary and only used for
    >rocket science applications and the like where it's more economical?

    When creating a language was profitable because it tied users to IBM
    hardware IBM created languages. PL/1 and RPG spring to mind. Why would
    they create a language now?
     
    David Segall, Jun 2, 2005
    #4
  5. Ross Bamford <> writes:

    > Because they're not good at that kind of thing


    You are discounting Rexx and COBOL, heathen.
     
    Tor Iver Wilhelmsen, Jun 3, 2005
    #5
  6. IBM Programming Languages (was: Re: Just a passing question)

    - <>
    wrote on Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:05:56 +0800:
    > If IBM is smart enough to create SWT which involves tons of coding, why
    > didn't they bother to create a programming language to rival Java and
    > C#? Or do they already have but it's proprietary and only used for
    > rocket science applications and the like where it's more economical?


    REXX, ObjectREXX, and NetRexx are IBM languages, the work of one
    engineer, Mike Cowlishaw. On IBM systems, REXX supplanted all of the
    prior scripting and control languages, because it's simple, incredibly
    expressive, and easy to embed in other applications and environments.
    REXX has never really spread outside of IBM systems (except on Amiga,
    oddly enough), but it's worth learning; Java programmers should probably
    start with NetRexx, because it uses the familiar Java libraries, while
    OREXX is more suitable for writing standalone apps that work with native
    libraries.

    IBM has produced and worked in a number of other languages over the
    years. A lot of code is written in COBOL, Ada, and RPG, probably more
    lines of code than Java, C, and C++ combined, and certainly more money
    goes through that code.

    This stuff isn't for "rocket science" (FORTRAN is still the dominant
    language of rocket science, and very little rocket science is done on
    IBM systems). It's for business environments most people are not too
    familiar with; the millions of developers who write apps on these "toy
    home computers" (from the perspective of enterprise development) usually
    don't have much contact with the few tens of thousands of developers who
    work in the big-iron business environments.

    --
    <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
    "Punch, he kills and looks to me... I cannot help you, Punch; you are
    half-crazed." "No, no, no, Punch is fully crazed. He is a sociopath. He can
    do anything because he feels nothing. Mr. Punch is a winner." -Colin Miller
     
    Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes, Jul 4, 2005
    #6
  7. -

    Joan Guest

    Re: IBM Programming Languages (was: Re: Just a passing question)

    "Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > - <>
    > wrote on Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:05:56 +0800:
    > > If IBM is smart enough to create SWT which involves tons of coding, why
    > > didn't they bother to create a programming language to rival Java and
    > > C#?


    Becuse they're smart ! ;-)

    > Or do they already have but it's proprietary and only used for
    > > rocket science applications and the like where it's more economical?

    >
    > REXX, ObjectREXX, and NetRexx are IBM languages, the work of one
    > engineer, Mike Cowlishaw. On IBM systems, REXX supplanted all of the
    > prior scripting and control languages, because it's simple, incredibly
    > expressive, and easy to embed in other applications and environments.
    > REXX has never really spread outside of IBM systems (except on Amiga,
    > oddly enough), but it's worth learning; Java programmers should probably
    > start with NetRexx, because it uses the familiar Java libraries, while
    > OREXX is more suitable for writing standalone apps that work with native
    > libraries.
    >
    > IBM has produced and worked in a number of other languages over the
    > years. A lot of code is written in COBOL, Ada, and RPG, probably more
    > lines of code than Java, C, and C++ combined, and certainly more money
    > goes through that code.
    >
    > This stuff isn't for "rocket science" (FORTRAN is still the dominant
    > language of rocket science, and very little rocket science is done on
    > IBM systems). It's for business environments most people are not too
    > familiar with; the millions of developers who write apps on these "toy
    > home computers" (from the perspective of enterprise development) usually
    > don't have much contact with the few tens of thousands of developers who
    > work in the big-iron business environments.
    >
    > --
    > <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
    > "Punch, he kills and looks to me... I cannot help you, Punch; you are
    > half-crazed." "No, no, no, Punch is fully crazed. He is a sociopath. He

    can
    > do anything because he feels nothing. Mr. Punch is a winner." -Colin

    Miller
     
    Joan, Jul 4, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Victor Bazarov
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    922
    E. Robert Tisdale
    Mar 23, 2005
  2. walterbyrd
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    379
    Damjan
    Apr 10, 2006
  3. Ark Khasin

    Is it just me or just Microsoft?

    Ark Khasin, Jul 15, 2007, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    767
    Lionel B
    Jul 16, 2007
  4. Ark Khasin

    Is it just me or just Microsoft?

    Ark Khasin, Jul 15, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    42
    Views:
    1,143
    user923005
    Jul 17, 2007
  5. pereges
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    445
    pereges
    Jun 1, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page