Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!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: 29 Apr 91 19:29:29 GMT References: <1991Apr26.073554.10580@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr29.071720.17169@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 25 In-Reply-To: pete@violet.berkeley.edu's message of Mon, 29 Apr 1991 07:17:20 GMT In article <1991Apr29.071720.17169@agate.berkeley.edu> pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) writes: The point I am trying to pound home is that ppIPC is DESIGNED to do jobs that ARexx is not (and vice versa of course). Even though you CAN drive a screw with a hammer, choose the best tool for each job. The point I'm trying to make is that the Rexx Message protocol may be adequate for the job at hand, is an established standard, and has a language available for playing with the messages. ppIPC is certainly better for the job at hand. But is it enough better to justify adopting yet another standard (thus adding to their major feature - that there are so many to choose from), and giving up a nice, interpretive language for prototyping things in? Yes, choose the best tool for each job - but the "best tool" isn't always the one that is technically the best; the rest of the world needs to be considered.