🚀 go-pugleaf

\From: aaron@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Aaron Wallace)
 \Reply-To: aaron@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Aaron Wallace)
 
 Wow, I talking to some one from Stanford. <Shiver> <GRIN>
 
 \Hi!
 
 Hello to you!
 
 \I've just read some *very* good reviews of this package.  Has
 \anyone had a chance to toy with it yet?
 
 Yes I have, its everything he says and more!
 
 \Is it as earth-shattering as Mr. "SpinRite" says in his
 \InfoWorld blurb (5-21-91)?
 
 Yes it is.  While it does have its faults, it should bring
 Windows programming into a new era.  The speed of the programming
 is nice.  I have writen very stable stuff in less than an hour.
 It is not weak by any means.  It has what everything you need to
 stare at the screen for 24 hours straight like he did.
 
 \Is this going to be the "hypercard" of Windows, or is this more
 \"hype."
 
 I did not understand his reference here(I stay away from Macs, so
 have very little to go on).  If he meant ease of programability
 then yes its going to be.  I do not see a "hype" problem.
 
 \For the uninformed: from what I can glean it's an incrementally-
 \compiled BASIC-based Windows scripting language that actually
 \produces good, small code with minimal effort.
 
 Actualy they borrowed that threaded P-code stuff from the QB and
 PDS series, is the way I understand it.  Yes the code is tight
 but their is a 200K DLL that you have to have somewhere in your
 path.  There is no compile to a stand alone (yet).
 
 \Enquiring minds want to know if MS finally produced something
 \that actually halfway resembles a usable compiler, or should I
 \go back to reading my Turbo Pascal/Windows manual...?
 
 Sorry but this is subjective on your part.  I belive it to be a
 very well thought out piece of work that will stand on its own.
 However others will fault the required DLL as a major draw back.
 Given what appears to be a bias against Microsoft, this may not
 be the proof you need.  I on the other hand would not go near a
 Borland product <GRIN>.