MikeC wrote:
> Kelli Halliburton wrote:
>> No, Microsoftt quit programming anything for the Amiga after
>> AmigaBASIC. Commodore didn't "switch" to Arexx from it, either --
>> Rexx and BASIC serve two entirely different functions.
>
>  From everything I've read and being a Commodore CATS developer, the
> story is that Commodore didn't want to continue paying royalties to
> Microsoft for AmigaBASIC. There also seemed to be problems running
> AmigaBASIC on newer versions of AmigaDOS/Workbench past v1.3.
>
> Granted, Arexx was never an "accurate" replacement for AmigaBASIC but
> that's one way Commodore positioned it. It's kind of like, "yeah, we
> don't have AmigaBASIC anymore but look, we have something much more
> useful: Arexx."

Commodore never did a good job of recruiting development for the Amiga. They
didn't want to pay Microsoft to continue developing AmigaBASIC. They didn't
want to pay Borland to port Turbo Pascal. They didn't want to pay
WordPerfect Corp. to continue developing WordPerfect for Amiga.

They didn't want to continue paying for text-to-speech after 2.04. They
didn't want to keep paying Dawes for ARexx. That's why the speech engine was
not part of 2.1 or later; that's why ARexx is not part of 4.0.

But again: ARexx and AmigaBASIC aren't really comparable. The former is a
scripting language that can perform interprocess communication and grant
macro functionality for applications. The latter is a complete interpreted
programming language including commands for sound, graphics, and GUI
components.

It's overly simplistic to say that Commodore "switched" from AmigaBASIC to
ARexx.

"Kelli Halliburton" <kelli217@crosswinds.not> writes:

> It's overly simplistic to say that Commodore "switched" 
> from AmigaBASIC to ARexx.

Maybe the Commodore *developers* and *technicians* didn't, but 
it is pretty obvious that the marketing droids and those writing 
instructions did.

-- 
Anders Carlsson

"Please not to close to the hair, finger, clothes to run about the
 inside's vehicle, in order to prevent quilt involvement." -- Bit Racer

Hi Keli,

Sure, it is overly simplistic but, I believe, an accurate representation.

To quote from the Rexx FAQ:

REXX is a programming language designed by Michael Cowlishaw of IBM UK 
Laboratories.  Rexx is an acronym which stands for "Restructured 
Extended Executor Language".  In Mike's own words: "REXX is a procedural 
language that allows programs and algorithms to be written in a clear 
and structured way."

I've programmed in AmigaBASIC and I've coded in Arexx so I'm well aware 
of the differences. It is also why they probably felt so compelled to 
bundle systems with AmigaVision. Again, certainly no replacement for 
AmigaBASIC but nevertheless, it was a type of authoring environment. Let 
me explain...

This is where I believe a major shift happened with Commodore and maybe 
computing in general. It's something I've talked about in other 
threads...In the 8-bit days, people were empowered to write their own 
software. It was as simple as turning on your computer and just start 
typing. With the Amiga-era and the folding of AmigaBASIC, that 
opportunity for the average folk to write their own software was slowly 
disappearing.

Things transitioned to an application-centric focus. This is where I 
believe Arexx fits in. Arexx wasn't exactly a replacement, but a 
transition product.

MikeC


Kelli Halliburton wrote:

> It's overly simplistic to say that Commodore "switched" from AmigaBASIC to
> ARexx.

MikeC <MikeC@nospam.com> writes:

> I've programmed in AmigaBASIC and I've coded in Arexx

Is the usage of different words only to vary the language, or do 
you put slightly different meanings into programming and coding?

-- 
Anders Carlsson

"Please not to close to the hair, finger, clothes to run about the
 inside's vehicle, in order to prevent quilt involvement." -- Bit Racer

Hi Anders,

> Is the usage of different words only to vary the language

Yes...don't read too much into it. ;)

I used to different words to try and differentiate the two. I could have 
  used them interchangeably. I'm not sure if there is a real difference 
between coding and programming. Some might think so, other won't.

MikeC