Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!rpi!leah!wfh58
From: wfh58@leah.Albany.Edu (William F. Hammond)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: AmigaBasic
Summary: is not "easier" than ARexx if you know both
Message-ID: <3177@leah.Albany.Edu>
Date: 15 Jun 90 16:32:08 GMT
References: <22042@snow-white.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: wfh58@leah.albany.edu.UUCP (William F. Hammond)
Organization: Dept of Math & Stat, SUNYA, Albany, NY
Lines: 27

In article <22042@snow-white.udel.EDU> GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) writes:
> ...
> ...        AmigaBasic is FASTER and easier (enironment-wise) than AREXX.
> AREXX allows for system work that is beyond the scope of BASIC.  ...

If you're experienced with Basic and have never used Rexx before, yes,
AmigaBasic will seem easier than ARexx.  But if you know both equally
well, it's a different story.

While an advanced ARexx user can do things that would be difficult
in AmigaBasic, everyday things can be done more easily IMHO in ARexx than
in Basic.  First, ARexx does not give the feeling of "taking over" the
machine.  You just say "rx program_name".  If you want to debug, there's
a fantastic "tracing console", a special window, that shows you everything
that's going on without the insertion of "print" statements you really
don't want in your code (or in the "output window").  You can arrange to
go through the code a step at a time.

> ...
>      F. Michael Theilig  -  The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest
>                            GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet
>                            GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
William F. Hammond                   Dept. of Mathematics & Statistics
518-442-4625                         SUNYA, Albany, NY 12222
wfh58@leah.albany.edu                wfh58@albnyvms.bitnet
----------------------------------------------------------------------