Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!amdahl!pyramid!leadsv!laic!nova!darin
From: darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Dnet Script files
Message-ID: <599@laic.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jun 89 18:28:00 GMT
References: <8906230034.AA26384@hermes.Berkeley.EDU> <11995@s.ms.uky.edu>
Sender: news@laic.UUCP
Reply-To: darin@nova.UUCP (Darin Johnson)
Organization: Lockheed AI Center, Menlo Park
Lines: 23

>PLEASE PLEASE not an Arexx port. Don't make DNET dependent on third party
>software. Just put a state machine in there.

Maybe this is a common misconception...

Adding an ARexx port does NOT make the software less usable for
people without ARexx.  It only makes in more usable for people
with it.  There are very few (if any) programs that add an ARexx
port and then yank out other interfaces as being "obsolete".

An ARexx port can be added to a program with only a small amount
of code, and the person without ARexx won't be able to tell.

For developers:  If your appliction can benefit from an ARexx port,
try to put it in (in an upgrade if you're out of time and money).
For a lot of people, an ARexx port often swings the decision between
competing products, so you're helping yourself out, as well as the user.
(Gosh, think of an ARexx connection between Magellan and say... DungeonMaster!)

.. Aaaagghhh... Klunk..  Sorry, fell off my soapbox

Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com)
	We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.