CompuServe Messages

Rexx

    18-Aug-95 06:19:28
Sb: #119309-Rexx
Fm: Wayne Cole 76370,621
To: Alan Ridgeway 74347,2501
Basic is not set up to be an interprocess communication language and cannot so wath ARexx/Rexx do in that regard. Although some people have actually written programs in Rexx/Arexx, it was not designed for that, as was Basic. They are two totally different animals designed to do tow totally different jobs. Eliminating Arexx from the Amiga and forcing people to use AmigaBasic for the things Arexx does would never have worked, and would not allow the wonderful multi application scripts that can save gobs of time if a process is repeated by an operator directing data through a multituded of apps to get it in the final form. Likewise, now that PCs have finally discovered multi-tasking (and of course will claim credit for inventing same on the desktop, I'm sure) they need inerprocess control scripts to string apps together to do special jobs. The overhead to do this in basic is prohibitive, and to change basic to handle such a role is a fundamental change to the entire concept of an application development language. IOTW, it wouldn't be basic anymore. This incredible resistance to Rexx is irrational when you consider that to do what Rexx does, Basic would have to assimilate an incredible array of new function calls. SInce the structure of a basic program and Rexx script are so similar, the process of learning all the new basic structures ends up being no different than just learning Rexx in the first place. And having self-taught myself on both languages I can tell you it ain't no big deal. Spend an hour with the Rexx docs and a machine with the Rexx host and you'll be writing fairly useful scripts. The hardest part about Rexx is finding documents on it. wmc – via Autopilot!