cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (03/04/88)
[Note I'm trying to move the discussion to comp.sys.amiga.tech]
In article <7335@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> pete@violet.berkeley.edu () writes:
->With an integrated monster, you're stuck with the notions of those who
->designed the thing: with modules, just chuck out the ones that don't suit
->and (hopefully!) replace them with better ones from someone else. All that
->the programs have to have is a common language of interaction.
This is a killer problem, I have a copy of AREXX on order so I will be able
to realisticly evaluate it's suitability for a task communication language.
Unfortunately, unless someone can spring a fairly complete system on the
world fully formed the bickering about what needs to go in will be
intolerable. One of the things I have learned is that for every person
who has a voice in the 'standard' the time to agreement is cut in half.
With all of Usenet participating we would be lucky to get agreement in
2060 :-).
So in the meantime lets generate some ideas of what needs to be accomplished.
-> ... There is a certain operating system
->that goes by the name of "Windows" that happens to have buried in it a
->thing called "DDE" (Dynamic Data Environment). Strangely it doesn't seem
->to have had much publicity yet -- I've only come across one article (in the
->January issue of Personal Computer World -- which may be hard to come by on
->this side of the Atlantic). There has been at least one other, I know, by
->Bill Gates himself, but I can't remember where. [Chuck McManis, you were
->the one who brought that to our attention -- where was it?]
In the Computer Currents article on interprocess communication.
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.