Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!uunet!overload!dillon From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Hyper Functionality [was Re: Amiga Conversion...] Message-ID: Date: 30 Apr 91 19:02:17 GMT References: Organization: Not an Organization Lines: 40 In article mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >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 >.. >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. On the otherhand, if you decide to stick to one thing forever you wind up in the same boat as all the poor IBM-PC users trying to run MSDOS compatible programs from Windows. Like AREXX, if ppIPC isn't *required* to use a program then gaining acceptance will simply be a function of its functionality. > -- >He was your reason for living Mike Meyer >So you once said mwm@pa.dec.com >Now your reason for living decwrl!mwm >Has left you half dead -Matt -- Matthew Dillon dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US 891 Regal Rd. uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon Berkeley, Ca. 94708 USA