🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5231@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <Mar.1.16.12.03.1990.15155@pilot.njin.net> limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>> Basically, I see it as a parser
>> that programs can "plug-and-chug" to get a script language, a parser,
>> and a gateway to AREXX.  If I can make it a .library, it would make
>> adding an internal scripting language w/AREXX port easier for developers.
>
>Basically, that fits in well with our view. The big problem I see with
>REXX is that it needs each application to implement their own scripting
>language anyway, which is an uncool duplication of effort. This fills
>that gap nicely.
>-- 
> _--_|\  Peter da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.

I'm not sure what that means.  True, with ARexx the developer needs to write
code to handle all the commands the application can receive from an ARexx
script/program, but this hardly the same as writing an entire scripting
language, is it?  How will Tcl change this...won't one still need to write
the code to handle any commands it can receive?  (True, you won't need to
worry about receiving and parsing RexxMsgs, but once you have the code to 
do this, it is fairly easy to drop into an application.)  

I'm not try to be confrontational...just trying to understand why Tcl has
such an advantage over ARexx, if it does.

 -Chris
-----
Chris Lang    University of Michigan, College of Engineering
home: 4622 Bursley             work: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
      Ann Arbor, MI  48109           900 Victors Way, Suite 226
      (313) 763-1832                 Ann Arbor, MI  48108
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu          (313) 995-0300
"I hate quotations.  Tell me what you know."  - Ralph Waldo Emerson