Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!peter
From: peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: AREXX, a plea, and an egoboo.
Message-ID: <900@nuchat.UUCP>
Date: 7 Apr 88 04:39:28 GMT
Organization: Public Access - Houston, Tx
Lines: 70

I'm sorry, but REXX just doesn't feel right. It's too big (conceptually) for
what I want to do. It ties too many functions into one package. It isn't zen.
I have the same feelings about Conman and a host of other programs that
people have written for the Amiga.

I'm sure they're great programs, but I just don't like the way they taste.
At the risk of sounding like the Emperor of Austria, they have too many
notes.

I have been given to understand, for example, that Conman includes a pipe
device. What's a pipe doing there? It doesn't make sense to me. Now, a clip-
board interface, that'd make sense. But not a pipe.

Similarly, REXX combines two dissimilar functions (at least they seem
dissimilar to me): a message system and a programming language.

I don't like the programming language. I'm NOT saying it's bad. I'm
just saying that I don't like it. Why should I have to write programs in
a language I don't like just to use the message ports?

I'm sure there are those of you who feel that awk is totally brain-dead,
but I'm not trying to convince anyone to use it. Use REXX if you prefer.
Just don't force me to... which is what will end up happening if it becomes
a standard.

Someone suggested I write a minimal REXX driver that just provides the message
ports. I'd rather not. I'm busy enough as it is doing work I get paid for.

I suppose I'll have to buy REXX just to see if I should provide a REXX port
in Browser. Grumble.

----------
And now for a plea. Please, people, before you do anything stop and ask
yourself if you can do it within the namespace of the file system. Programs
already know how to use that.

Let's not pull a System V and start adding new namespaces all over creation.

To quote from the Intuition manual (page whatever, under OpenWindow):

"Meanwhile, I still opt (and argue) for simplicity and elegance."

Pleaces that people have started doing this:

	IPC.
	REXX.
	Multiple serial boards.

----------
And now an egoboo...

Peter Schachte... at first I didn't much care for your variant of my
PATH: proposal, but it's begone to grow on me. Yeh, I like it a bit better
than my own idea. Suggestions:

	Please provide an easy way for programs to do AddPath and
	DeletePath calls (say, by getting a lock on PATH:foobar and
	passing non-standard packets).

	You should be able to cd to a PATH: entry.

	Doing an Open("PATH:c/foo", MODE_READONLY) should send
	the Open packet to whatever foo's DeviceProc is and get
	out of the way, for performance reasons. Otherwise I suspect
	that you'll start seeing a slowdown in loading stuff from
	PATH:c.
-- 
-- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva  `-_-'
-- normally  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter                U
-- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.