🚀 go-pugleaf

In <305.27511607@vger.nsu.edu>, manes@vger.nsu.edu writes:
>In article <2254@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>, lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes:
>> In <253.2747d0bd@vger.nsu.edu>, manes@vger.nsu.edu writes:
>>>In article <90318.162021DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>, DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

[ Some discussion of ARP vs. CBM-supplied commands.

>I agree that it needed replacement, but by Commodore not the masses.

Aside from the term 'masses', as applied to a small group of folks, I agree
that CBM should have replaced many of the supplied commands. Unfortunately, CBM
had other priorities. I am not one to second-guess their setting of priorities,
but they obviously felt that getting the CLI commands in order was of less
importance than the ARP group felt. The ARP bunch supplied what was obviously
in demand, and did a pretty good job of it. It isn't as if you were forced into
using ARP. Even if you used some parts of it, you could still leave out any
part you didn't like or that you had problems with.


>>>Well history has proven that ARP has produced more strange problems,
>>>incompatibilities and other oddities than it ever solved.  It also
>>>proves that the masses can't do a better job.
>> 
>> Oh? I had problems with exactly 3 of the ARP commands, and no more. I wish I
>> could have said the same for the supplied Amigados commands. Remember, we are
>> talking about history here, and not the supplied commands as we now know them,
>> highly influenced by many third party ideas, ARP included.
>
>Have you ever tried to run a installation script on a piece of commercial
>software that thought it had the ARP command set?  Have you ever had a 
>commercial package attempt to replace all of your Commodore supplied commands
>with ARP versions?

No I haven't. If you have, all I can say is that you have a lot more faith than
I have in the infallibility of those who assume anything at all about your
machine and write scripts to mess with the setup. I do not run scripts without
first checking them out very carefully, making changes as necessary, or simply
seeing what they do and doing it manually. Running a script without doing so
leaves you in a poor position to blame ARP for any woes that you may incur.

>My problem with ARP is simple.  It did not come from Commodore.  It had
>little or no support, and in my opinion was not as useful as some of the
>'shells' that have been in the PD for the longest time.

ARP had as much support as any third party piece of software, which at times
has been as much support as you could expect for the CBM supplied commands. At
the time of the first appearance of ARP, what shells were in use? Matt Dillon's
comes to mind, and of course the noermal CBM supplied CLI, but neither of these
addressed the problems beyond any built-in commands in Matt's shell.

>> 
>>>It is hard enough for most to learn AmigaDOS, adding a command set that
>>>doesn't work particularly well does nothing but add a support headache
>>>for Commodore and their dealers, and makes the outsiders believe that
>>>AmigaDOS needed replacement.
>> 
>> I would agree, though I fail to see where the ARP command set "doesn't work
>> particularly well". As of the inception of ARP, the Amigados command set did
>> not work particularly well, or consistently. It _did_ need replacement. The
>> interfaces to the Amigados functions _did_ need revamping. That CBM apparently
>> agrees is ample proof that ARP was, if not the total answer, at least a
>> demonstration that the concepts were valid.
>
>See above.  Who should change it?  Commodore.

And as I say, I agree. Since they did not, ARP was born, and served its
purpose, which was at least twofold. One, it supplied the functionality and
consistency the users wanted, and two, it showed CBM some good ideas that they
later adopted. Saying that only CBM should ever write programs for the Amiga is
nonsense (I know you agree with this sentiment), but where do you draw the
line. Should we all be stuck with Ed and Emacs just because CBM supplied them
in the earliest releases? Should we use Edit instead of See or Sed? Should I
always use List or Dir instead of ls? (I use all three, for different reasons).

Early on, I wrote a small Echo replacement. I wrote it for two reasons. The
first reason was that there was no documentation on the BCPL conventions of
supplying ESC sequences to a command, and I wanted to be able to make use of
colour, typestyles, and so on.  The second reason was that I wanted something
to write using assembler.  The result was quite functional, and a lot of folks
used it for a long time.  The users who used it certainly felt that it was
worth having (especially at the price, completely free).  Was I wrong to write
it?  I think not.  Funny, I didn't hear a lot of people flaming me for writing
it either, or flaming the program because CBM didn't supply it.  Perhaps it's
just because you weren't using Amigas then or didn't see my little program.

Sounds to me like you should be flaming those who write scripts that make
assumptions, rather than those who make damned fine attempts to help the Amiga
community.

-larry

--
The only things to survive a nuclear war will be cockroaches and IBM PCs.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                                 |
| \X/    lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322  -or-  76703.4322@compuserve.com        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+