Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!udel!rminnich
From: rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Time is of the essence on IPC.
Message-ID: <1661@louie.udel.EDU>
Date: 21 Mar 88 18:14:37 GMT
References: <1571@louie.udel.EDU> <353@brambo.UUCP>
Reply-To: rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich)
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 24

In article <353@brambo.UUCP> morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) writes:
>In article <1571@louie.udel.EDU> rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes:
>}In other words we need people 
>}working on SYSTEMS using what we have, not continuing to build foundations.
>And if everyone thought this way we'd all still be using CP/M,
>wouldn't we?
   You miss my point, or you have not been reading the discussions.
I have seen (my count) five different IPC proposals roll by, and
arguments about which is better for what reason, and so on. The amiga
is to the point where we should not continue arguing about fundamentals,
which a good working IPC is. We ought to be building systems that use
an IPC that works, a la AmigaTeX and its use of ARexx. I have been 
messing with these machines since late '85 and it seems incredible that
we still do not have an IPC standard! We need some stability in this
area, and we don't need five different IPC standards, and it is
probably too late to build a full-blown object-oriented system, even
if we were sure we wanted it, which no one is. 
   What do you recommend? I want to build some fun toys that 
use an existing IPC; I'm not interested in creating Yet Another IPC 
Standard. And there are a fair number of people in the same boat. 
Do you have something useful to say, or are you just going to complain?
If the former, we can use your help!
-- 
ron (rminnich@udel.edu)