CompuServe Thread

Doug: If you ar lookint to do batch rendering in LW4.0 use ScreamerNet. I wish I already had the programe so I could explan in detail, but I have seen it done. you just load the animations that you want to render in the que. the only differance is that you only have one proccesor. Brad Hayes Hayes Visual Communication

Look forward to seing those NT Rexx interpreters in the Library! Will pass comments re: visual basic etc, to management. Chuck.

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!

Wayne, I my last post i did not say get rid of Rexx. I want Visual Basic for 7 reasons. 1 IT exists on NT. 2 As Arexx is a standard on th Amiga VB is the standard on the PC 3 There are more VB developers then there are Rexx developers 4 VB will be updated and improved faster than Rexx could ever hope to be 5 VB has more plug-ins to its architecture then Rexx could ever hope to have (VBXs) 6 Because if NewTek dosn't take advantage of it, others will, and the others will benefit from it. 7 I would not force you to use VB in Amiga( if it existed);) I have a semi counter point to my first point. Rexx can be found for NT. But don't try looking for it in any store, nor are we sure if they are completly compatable with Rexx in Lightwave. Regina Rexx from Ataman will be available in future development kits for NT, but in the mean time VB is still the standard for Rapid development on the PC bar-none. So Wayne why are you so resistant to VB…… 😉 I wouldn't call you irrational 🙁 P.S. I enjoy your articles in Lightwave Pro.

Since Win NT is supposed to support full OS/2 emulation, I'd be surprised if it didn't support Rexx. Or, we'll all be able to say MS lies. Besides, even if it isn't noticable at this point, since the WinNT kernal is essentially OS/2 (there are apparently some error messages that were not cleaned up and still have the OS/2 tags in them, I'm told) it is almost certain that either Rexx or hooks for it are there already. And, as users get more used to multi-tasking, they will after a language that can create external host processes to control and pass a variety of data among several independent applications running at the same time. >>You put forth a good argument on the advantages of rexx over VB but this >>is irrelevent if VB works (ie is implemented on the host OS) and REXX >>isn't! Once again, what I have said has nothing to do with emotional attachments you et al may have to Basic (don't read this with negative tone of voice as it is not intended with such). It is a technical fact that Basic and Rexx operate at two different levels of the machine software heirarchy and are intended to do two entirely differnt jobs. Since you do not understand the difference, no amount of my explanations short of a course in operating systems technology will elucidate well enough it for you so you will understand the technical hell your proposal will create (or at best severe limitations causing about 90% of what Rexx does best to be tossed: that is allowing only simple Basic plug-ins to be run from a LW button instead of having complete control of LW via an external command host). But don't feel bad. Most everyone who hasn't programmed extensively for a living, earned hefty degrees in CS, or gotten equivalent experience in Hard Knox University, doesn't grasp the distinction either. Now, many ARexx macros in LW are essentially like plug-ins, and since the newer revs are supposed to support plug-ins, I suspect they will suppor any language (but probably favor C) as long as the standard interface is presented to LW from where the pluyg-in is invoked. However, many of us watn full Rexx support so that we can write scripts to control LW externally to to jobs that may be more efficient if automated rather than done manually with even repeated calls to plug-ins. BTW, just as an added thought, consider that IBM created Rexx for the mainframe environment where they already had access to PL-I, Cobol, Algol, Basic, Fortran, and BAL, not to mention good ole JCL and its MVS cousins. Because all those create applications, or simple job control batch files instead of interprocesses communication mechanisms, they made Rexx to do specifically what all the programming and job control languages would not. It wasn't by accident or happanstance. Rexx was created to address a need and there still is no other tool in a multi-tasking environment that is as readily available and as accessible as Rexx that I know of. wmc – via Autopilot!