----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 8:12 AM
Subject: [REBOL] REBOL and "hw" communication ... Re:(4)
> Given the number of companies making embedded systems with TCP/IP (or
> even web servers) built in, it won't be long before the simplest way
> to do device control is to buy a little box for $50 to $200 that does
> the low-level, device-specific stuff out one side, and talks to a
> TCP/IP network out the other. The controller code would be written in
> whatever the embedded folks support, and all of the rest (control,
> multiple read-only clients, etc.) could be written in a TCP/IP-aware
> language (e.g., REBOL!) to produce a platform independent "manager"
> application which controls and coordinates multiple devices via the
> exchange of messages in standard protocols.
This sounds too much like "buy another IO card to do this job", when i
already have a serial IO card with the phone line in it (called a modem), a
serial line with another puter in it (called ethernet), a parallel line with
the printer and Zipdrive plugged into it, plus a proprietary parallel/scsi
for the scanner, plus the mouse and monitor,, and on one box i had a
IEEE-488 buss driver. I don't want another IO card/box/driver and protocol,
but i'd sure like a "send/get this string to/from the serial/parallel port"
function. I shake my head when i see people buy puters and all they do is
manipulate bits inside the box, with no connection to the real world.
> Not to sound (too much ;-) like a curmudgeon, but after 25+ years in
> the computing field, I've abandoned the notion of a "one size fits all"
> language in favor of smaller, cleaner, manageable languages, each of
> which "does one thing, but does it exceeding well".
Why did you abandon that notion? I have 7 languages on this puter, and each
has favorable points... but forget about getting them to get along with each
other! And besides, i am not going to use 4 languages to get one job done.
Kat
