Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm From: mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Hyper Functionality [was Re: Amiga Conversion...] Message-ID: Date: 26 Apr 91 17:47:44 GMT References: <1991Apr22.071413.22219@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr26.073554.10580@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 46 In-Reply-To: pete@violet.berkeley.edu's message of Fri, 26 Apr 1991 07:35:54 GMT In article <1991Apr26.073554.10580@agate.berkeley.edu> pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) writes: > Like you, I'm not trying to put down ppIPC. I'm trying to find out why > we should abandon a standard that - while not as flexible as ppIPC - > appears capable of doing the job. > [That's a dangerous tack, Mike... I mean, why should we abandon MS/DOS for MultiTasking, anyhow...(:-)(:-)] Because it allows us to do things that we can't do with MS/DOS. Now, if you asked why we should abandon OS/9 for AmigaDOS, that would be closer to what's going on... I'm not in the least advocating ABANDONING ARexx, though. It has opened up a lot of possibilities on the Amiga that didn't really exist before. To me, it's main strength is as a scripting language that's both totally flexible and adapted to multitasking -- something that only un*x otherwise has, and that not in nearly as user-accessible a form. It is NOT strong in either speed or handling complex data structures or flow networks, and this is where ppIPC fits. ARexx isn't strong in those things. But I'm not suggesting using ARexx; I'm suggestiong using the the Rexx Message protocol. It's not as complete as ppIPC, but is an established standard with lots of support, and comes complete with a nice language for playing with the messages. Kent's demo may indicate a serious application that can't be done with Rexx Messages; I need to sit down and look at it (when I find the time, which seems to be in short supply these days). As for your objections to ARexx - part of them amount to "I don't like doing it that way." For some reason, I can't see that as valid. The other one is that you can't see asking people writing Rexx to deal with Hexx address, etc. I haven't suggested anything about having to do that, or even anything that requires you to do that. I've pointed out things you can do with Rexx messages that require that if you want to do those things in Rexx. While clumsy, it's a win that there's a language there _at all_.