Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!doug-merritt
From: doug-merritt@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: More DMouse 1.03 bugs
Message-ID: <5768@cup.portal.com>
Date: 22 May 88 19:08:52 GMT
References: <8805171931.AA07452@decwrl.dec.com> <9163@oberon.USC.EDU> <5593@cup.portal.com> <2041@sugar.UUCP>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 50
XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.4407

I wrote about creating a script language for Commodities Exchange.

Peter da Silva replied:
>AREXX is a decent scripting language. It's not well suited to handling
>things other than text strings directly, but you can put in a level of
>abstraction to hide the stuff.

I've been staying out of the AREXX discussion so far, mainly because
it seems clear to me that there are good arguments on both sides.

But let's not take it too far...your enthusiasm has taken you to a point
where you could say the same thing about *anything*, like if I ask for
a startup script language for VT100 (it already has one, btw) then you
say, "oh, 'script language', that's my cue...USE AREXX!!!"

Don't pound square pegs into round holes! No matter how wonderful
AREXX is, the simple fact of the matter is that very few people have it,
and at $50 a shot, it's going to stay that way. If you insist that
everything use AREXX, then we'll have to wait until everyone does
have it to implement anything new.

More logical would be to create a CX script language now. Later, when
1.4 includes AREXX as part of the standard distribution, *then* we
can use it with CX (if you still think it's appropriate, which I have
strong doubts about). Until then we need interim solutions.

Hmmm...I didn't use any arguments about technical merit. Ok, consider
this...what I was talking about for CX doesn't need *any* of the features
of AREXX. It doesn't need pattern matching, it doesn't need real smart
IPC control, it doesn't need control structures.

All you need is something real simple, like a file specifying what
program to start up when some hotkey is pressed, and translations
specifying that hotkey A should be translated to hotkey B, etc. You
could write AREXX programs to do this, sure, but it'd be a lot
harder than it would be with a simple script language. And it would be
overkill to boot. CX already supports all of the *functionality* you
need; it's just that currently you need to tell it what you want via
a C program. I'm proposing a more human friendly interface, that even
non-programmers could use, that's all.

It's not like you to have knee jerk reactions, Peter. Usually you think
things out very clearly. Oh well...I've posted much dumber things myself,
so I shouldn't criticize...With all the AREXX debate going on, it must be
easy to get jumpy.
	Doug
--
      Doug Merritt        ucbvax!sun.com!cup.portal.com!doug-merritt
                      or  ucbvax!eris!doug (doug@eris.berkeley.edu)
                      or  ucbvax!unisoft!certes!doug