🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Aug29.233027.4285@agate.uucp>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes:
> Third problem: This is ugly. The real BSD solution is clean, simple,
> and fit well with the existing system on Unix. This doesn't fit well
> with what's already on the Amiga (though the Unix solution would).

Arexx didn't fit well with what's already on the Amiga in the first place.
I personally find the Arexx program interface ugly. You can't let this
sort of thing stand in your way. Aesthetics aside, what's wrong with it?

I use a similar mechanism to stick Makefiles in small single-file C programs
on UNIX... "compile foo.c" extracts a Makefile from foo.c and runs Make.

> Fourth problem: Having Execute feed an ARexx script to ARexx cuts off
> the major part of ARexx's usefullness as a scripting language.

So your fancy Arexx shell uses a special mechanism for Arexx files, and
keeps the existing mechanism for everything else.

> Especially when ARexx _already has_ a mechanism allowing for multiple
> scripting languages.

The problem is that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of scripting languages
waiting in the wings that will work just fine with the mechanism I proposed,
and I'm not planning on Arexxising them. Are you volunteering to do the hard
work?
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva      `-_-'
...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com  'U`
"before making up your mind, please read the book." -- sherry.mann
"This is contrary to the spirit of rec.arts.sf-lovers" -- Jim Winer