Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!well!xanthian
From: xanthian@well.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Dealing with multiple scripting languages
Message-ID: <13427@well.UUCP>
Date: 31 Aug 89 19:21:11 GMT
References: <724@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>
Reply-To: xanthian@well.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 43

In article <724@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes:
>
>Since ARexx will be the 'native' script interpreter in 1.4 (with Amigados
>script capability retained, most likely), [...]

The AmigaDOS script, while it can have lots of .key, .bra, .ket, and line
parameter embellishments, has the wonderful advantage to the new user that
s/he can simply type a list, made up of the identical commands used at the CLI
interface, into a file, save the file, and "execute" it, without having to
learn a new programming language.

Syntactically and semantically, AREXX simply does not provide the same ability.
The command script used to replace the user's keystrokes at the CLI, done in
AREXX, is longer, more complex, contains extra setup items, is rife with
obscure punctuation, bears little resemblance to the typing it is meant to 
replace, and is in general a chore to learn.

I suggest that this makes it unacceptable as a primary script language; it is
very powerful, but it is a specialists' tool.  It sure seems, again, to me,
like there is no one minding the store at C=A wherein the needs of the new
user are kept forefront in every system software decision.  We're talking
lost market share again here, gentlebeings, and that saddens me as a loyal
Amiga gadfly.

I have no quarrel with AREXX being added to the Amiga's set of Extras tools,
in fact that is a fine idea, but I would have had to learn a whole new
programming language to make a few simple modifications to s:startup-sequence,
had it been written in AREXX instead of in AmigaDOS commands.  This would
not have been the way to have made a good impression on a new customer.

>The Mac? Oh, that's just like a computer, only slower.

[Fun game, and a wonderful way to avoid computer system religious wars!]

The Next? Oh, that's just like a Mac, only slower.

Again, please excuse my ranting; I just have this completely impractical
vision of the Amiga product line being a market success based on its
obvious technical merit and price/capabilities leadership, and I hate to
see all these advantages sacrificed by making the machine hard to use.

well!xanthian
Kent, the man from xanth, now just another echo from The Well.