Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: S/W Installation methodology
Message-ID: <3154@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 26 Dec 88 16:47:42 GMT
References: <2064@van-bc.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 23

In article <2064@van-bc.UUCP>, lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes:
> 	Unix-like utilities are fine, but take up space on the disk the software
> comes on, or must be provided on the WB or extras disk. Of course in order for
> them to be used in this way, they must truly be PD, and not just freely
> distributable, or the author's permission must be obtained. That's a lot of
> authors to contact and the answer may not always be an unqualified yes.

All of which applies to REXX as well. Besides, there is a large pool of
completely PD software designed to run in VERY small environments, the
Software Tools Virtual Operating System tape. Yes, it's all in RATFOR, but
converting it to 'C' could be done by a competant set of editor macros.

I said:
> > Not to knock REXX, but saying "nothing else comes close" is a bit excessive.

> 	I stand by what I said about nothing else coming close, given the
> alternatives available today.

And since REXX has the same disadvantages as the alternatives, I stand by
what I said. REXX is great, but for the job we're talking about it's not a
whole lot better than the alternatives.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net