Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!usenet From: jerry@violet.berkeley.edu ( Jerry Berkman ) Newsgroups: comp.unix.cray Subject: Re: REXX FOR UNICOS Message-ID: <1989Aug15.010010.16811@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 15 Aug 89 01:00:10 GMT References: <21157@cup.portal.com> <30469@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> Reply-To: jerry@violet.berkeley.edu ( Jerry Berkman ) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 19 In article <30469@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> jac@muslix.UUCP (James Crotinger) writes: > > You can register my vote for a port of REXX to the Crays! I'm an >Amiga user and have done quite a bit or REXX program on my machine. >Infinitely better than COSMOS, the batch language we have here at >NMFECC. (The programmer who maintains COSMOS is also an Amiga user >and has also expressed a strong desire to have REXX on the Crays). > > Jim REXX may be better than COSMOS on CTSS, but that is irrelevant. The question is is it better than the C shell and Bourne shell which are distributed as part of UNICOS? And is it better than other shells likely to become a part of UNICOS, and how many shells do we really need? I find C shell adequate for most uses, and Bourne shell if I really need efficiency. Jerry Berkman U.C. Berkeley