home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
kermit.columbia.edu.tar
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
newsgroups
/
misc.19971216-19980424
/
000187_news@newsmaster….columbia.edu _Thu Feb 5 22:13:52 1998.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1998-04-22
|
5KB
Return-Path: <news@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.30])
by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA00493
for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 22:13:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from news@localhost)
by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA13099
for kermit.misc@watsun; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 22:13:50 -0500 (EST)
Path: news.columbia.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.erols.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.idt.net!nntp-hub.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!news
From: mcmanus@idt.net (Russell D. McManus)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: Expect and Kermit (was: Re: frequent timeouts!)
Date: 03 Feb 1998 18:36:55 -0500
Organization: IDT
Lines: 84
Sender: mcmanr@thelonious
Message-ID: <m3oh0oclbc.fsf@idt.net>
References: <6ao98e$p4h$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <gerlachEnK1G9.IBG@netcom.com> <6avf8d$hmd$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <ncj3ei1redz.fsf@nytrdc058.eq.gs.com> <6b5asg$ia1$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-65.ts-14.nyc.idt.net
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2
Xref: news.columbia.edu comp.protocols.kermit.misc:8370
fdc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Frank da Cruz) writes:
> That's certainly one approach, but quite frankly we're not interested in
> it, because...
> : this raises portability problems...
> Right. Kermit scripts are portable. If you take away the scripting
> language, there is no more common ground.
well, that's an overstatement. if someone wants to write a portable
script, then they can write it in the kermit script language. there
is still common ground. there is not less common ground than before:
there is the same amount. there is more ground overall, but the new
stuff is unportable.
> Also, libraries are not portable; the very library mechanism is not
> portable.
hmm. of course you are right that the library mechanism is not
completely portable. then again, neither is the 'redirect' command
that appears in c-kermit. this fact tells me that lack of portability
is not a sufficient condition to doom an idea as far as kermit is
concerned. the question is how 'unportable' must something be to be
rejected?
> : (guile doesn't work on every platform)...
> Nor does Expect, Tcl, Perl, etc etc...
yes, this fact is by now well established.
> Increased use of Kermit overall does not pay the bills of the Kermit Project,
> so what good has been done if everybody is using "Kermit" in some form, but
> there is nobody here to answer their questions and keep up with their demands
> -- which is pretty much what we do all day (and night).
and this is the real reason. funding is a necessary condition for the
kermit project to continue. that's why i own both editions of
'programming c-kermit' (excellent book, frank). a zillion non
portable things must have been done for kermit-95, but the program has
commercial value. that is of course what drives the decision making
process.
> The bare fact is, there *is* no "core" functionality.
> No two people will ever agree on what constitutes the core; each one will want
> one more function added in. So before you know it, the core is the whole
> thing. And that begs the question of the "API" -- what is the API to a
> program that has 100,000 functions?
does kermit have 100,000 functions? somehow i think you are
exagerating. besides, it doesn't matter that everyone doesn't agree
what is in the core. the kermit project gets to decide; everyone else
then becomes reality challenged if they disagree.
> Should it be a Delphi 2.0 component? Of course. Should it also be a Windows
> 95 DLL? Definitely. A Windows NT DLL? Natch. For the Alpha too? And the
> Power PC? What about OS/2? Windows 3.1? Yes to all those. Should is also
> be an Active X control? A Netscape Plugin? A Solaris 2.6 dynamic libary? A
> VBX? An OCX? A Java object? Of course! A embeddable module for realtime
> systems? Yes, that too! But wait, is it Buzzword 1.0 compliant? Not yet.
> Quick, make it happen!
i don't think 'library' qualifies as a 'Buzzword', and if it does,
then it would certainly have a higher rev than 1.0. the biggest
platforms support the library concept: all flavors of unix, win95,
win-nt, os2, and surely others that i am not personally familiar with.
i'm still confused about one thing: why is it impossible for the
kermit project to make design decisions about what should go in a
library?
> How much should it cost? It should be free, naturally!
> Hey, it's all yours, go to it :-)
> - Frank
how about the same amount as the current version of kermit; pay
for a copy of the book if you want support?
and there is something to be gained: a quick tour through the
quotation rules in the kermit language demonstrates how difficult it
is to have a single syntax that is useful for both interaction and
programming. one encounters similar problems when programming in a
unix shell language. don't fault me for dreaming of something better!
-russ