Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mcnc!brooking
From: brooking@mcnc.org (Jim Brooking)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re: AREXX
Summary: Common REXX
Message-ID: <5915@alvin.mcnc.org>
Date: 18 Dec 89 13:12:05 GMT
References: <89349.005246ARTABAR@MTUS5.BITNET> <25110@cup.portal.com>
Organization: MCNC; RTP, NC
Lines: 25

In article <25110@cup.portal.com>, Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes:
> < Since there seems to be so much interest in AREXX, why not create a separate
> < group for it. ReXX (on CMS) and AREXX are different enough animals that
> < they should have separate groups.
> 
> In fact, that's a good suggestion.  Currently, Bitnet has split AREXX
> to the AREXX-L group and created a general REXX group separately (REXXLIST).  
> The AREXX group on USENET should feed the Bitnet AREXX-L group and the 
> REXX group on USENET should feed the Bitnet REXXLIST group.  No one
> on USENET seems to use CMS, so there is not much traffic for CMS REXX
> on USENET.
> 
> Will              (sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Will)  

I mildly disagree; if there are different REXX newsgroups
corresponding to different dialects of REXX, we a) encourage
different implementations of REXX to offer different language
constructs, etc., instead of encouraging all implementations
to stay in synch. We should avoid balkanizing REXX. Further,
we b) miss interesting and/or useful ideas that AREXX folks,
CMS folks, and unix folks (eventually) will have. Not so that
noone on CMS uses USENET. I had a conversation last evening
with a CMS person who learned of me thru USENET.

						Jim Brooking