Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!pepper!cmcmanis
From: cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Yet Another Entry In The 1.4 Wish List...
Message-ID: <95218@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 21 Mar 89 22:56:54 GMT
References: <504@morgoth.UUCP> <3453@amiga.UUCP> <10942@well.UUCP> <7587@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <4301@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis)
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 66

In article <4301@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM> (Rick Forrest) writes:
> I'd like to see a real scripting language in 1.4, one that would
> include pipes a la Unix to GREATLY enhance it's power. I want this to
> come from Commodore, not because I think they'll do a vastly better job
> than what people are doing with things like arp or Wshell, but because
> then it will be STANDARD, and code will start appearing all over the
> place, plus other people can use the scripts I write.

On the question of making a "STANDARD" you treat only one case. There
are, in fact, three ways to create a standard. 

#1) TRADITIONAL :
	The standard is created by it's being suppied with the OS or
	the documentation with the OS. This is how AmigaBASIC became
	a standard, everyone has it. Everyone can run Execute scripts
	as well. People that have 1.3 have "command history" and the
	ASK keyword for scripts.

	Using traditionally created standards is fairly easy, if your
	product fails, you tell the customer to get their OS upgraded.

#2) COMMON USE : 
	Common use standards are created by something being genuinely
	useful to the user community. Sun's NFS became a Common Use 
	standard way before AT&T decided they wanted to bundle it with
	System V. 

	Using common use standards is also quite easy, if your product
	fails you tell the customer where to get the missing "standard."

#3) LEGISLATED :
	The legislated standard is created by a bunch of people who have
	something to lose if it goes the "wrong" way. They all get together
	and try to out manuever everyone else in the group so that they
	don't have to do any work to "support" the new standard. In general
	everyone at the Standard's Meetings wants to add something that 
	they can point to and say "That is what we got into the standard."
	
	Using legislated standards is nearly impossible. The bulk of the
	standard is useless in accomplishing the task it was set out to 
	accomplish. Alternatively the standard is so cryptic and poorly 
	specified that two intelligent programmers implementing from the
	same "standard" usually produce something that cannot interoperate.

In the case of the Amiga one could make a case for AREXX becoming a 
common use standard. Because it is used (and useful) in many products
and because it is easily acquired, many people buy it and add it to 
their standard list of things they have on the system. WShell could
become a common use standard as well. Although half of the benefits of
WShell seem to be the value of ConMAN. When ConMAN has the ability to 
use proportional fonts and was built as a character mapped console 
rather than a smart refresh bitmapped console it too would become a 
standard of sorts. 

In general, if the scripts you write are useful, and you make the
requirement that people who use them have WShell. You will have 
begun the common use standard procedure. There are always people 
who live on the edge between eating this week or buying Wayne Gretsky's
Hockey who will not buy WShell to use your scripts, yet in general
most people won't mind. Especially since something like WShell can
make their overall life easier. 


--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.