Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: RCS or SCCS on the Amiga Native?
Keywords: Revision Control Systems
Message-ID: <4146@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Date: 31 Aug 89 11:43:53 GMT
References: <7751@cbmvax.UUCP> <2607@iscuva.ISCS.COM> <825@lilink.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston
Lines: 22

In article <825@lilink.UUCP>, intern@lilink.UUCP (Steve Faiwisewski) writes:
> I don't understand why you want to avoid using ARP?  ARP is popular,
> and lots of people have it (and it should be made more popular by
> using it in different products).

Obligatory sarcastic comment... you can say the same about the IBM PC.

ARP has a number of negative aspects. First and foremost, the ARP commands
do not quite match the AmigaDOS equivalents. Secondly, the thing is written
in assembly language. Now I realise memory isn't free, but on the Amiga it's
cheap enough that there's really no need to go for assembly and take on the
increased risk of bugs and increased support cost. Thirdly, the library is
in places gratuitously weird, particularly the wildcard parsing.

I used ARP extensively in 1.2 and was always finding places it was different
from AmigaDOS or just plain broken. By the time I switched to 1.3 I had been
forced to dump a good many of the ARP programs and go back to the old set.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva      `-_-'
...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com  'U`
"before making up your mind, please read the book." -- sherry.mann
"This is contrary to the spirit of rec.arts.sf-lovers" -- Jim Winer