Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!pacbell!att!alberta!ubc-cs!van-bc!lpami
From: lphillips@lpami.van-bc.UUCP (Larry Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Macro languages
Message-ID: <1769@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 18 May 88 00:50:34 GMT
Sender: lpami@van-bc.UUCP
Lines: 33


In <2005@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Now then. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that what this guy is
>saying is "why should I spend extra time putting a REXX port in my
>program? People will see it as a $50 surcharge on the program." I've
>paid for AREXX (Let you know when I get it), but I'd like to be able
>to distribute everything my customers need to run my program apart
>from a Workbench disk.

Not quite. Granted, if a program _needs_ ARexx to operate at all, then it
will require the purchase of ARexx. Most programs with an ARexx interface
do not require ARexx to use the program. Examples are TxEd (still a
perfectly functional editor) and PCLO Plus (still a perfectly functional
PCB layout program).

The other point of course is that the more whizzbang things that come
around that need ARexx, the more likely the user is to buy it, since it
becomes a $50 surcharge not on one program, but on many programs, and that
does not even take into account ARexx programs themselves, which make it
very easy to customize your environment with quick little scripts.

Of course it would be best if CBM paid Bill for it and distributed it as
part of the Amiga package. Bill deserves it, and so do the users.

-larry

--
Janus? Well, look at it this way. If you squint a little, the J could be
       Amiga checkmark, and the rest of the word describes MsDos.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                          |
| \X/    {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!lpami!lphillips |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322                                  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+