🚀 go-pugleaf

cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) writes:

>>>>>> On 19 Nov 90 19:57:07 GMT, mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) said:

>Mike> In article <CIMSHOP!DAVIDM.90Nov18152138@uunet.UU.NET>
>Mike> cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) writes:

>David> Perhaps an alternative suggestion to an AREXX command standard would
>Attempting to build a standard that incorporates all the possibilities of even
>just one of these types of programs would effectively make all programs that
>incorporates these standards the same, wouldn't it?  So, wouldn't that tend to
>reduce distinguishing features between programs making for less incentive to
>develop new programs of a particular type?  (the first one there is the
>standard?)

It would make for a standard _minimum_ level of functionality.
There are still many bells and whistles nobodies thought of yet,
new levels of performane and bugfreeness, andy hasst important
USER interface design (as oppsed to rexx interface).

In any case making programs more similar is GOOD. If I want to
do some CAD, or write a book why should I care if I use
XYZCAD v.s. ABCCAD ?? I just wanna do some CAD man...

The standard AREXX interface does not need to be all encompassing, just
a beginning. FOr example, all applications should support a certain
set of commands, like LOAD, SAVE, etc...
Then all text oriented program should support a few more standard cmds.