RE: mail_sendãBY: PistolGrip to Amcleod on Fri Jul 28 2000 02:21 pmãã > > Of course, nobody is interested in programming Command Shells, Modules, eã > > the SuperBAJA language (or whatever it's name is) with WHILE/DO/FOR loopsã > > subroutine calls, arrays, records, structures, etc, etc. So I don't actuã > > work on the BAJAPP program very much. Because after all, I am no longer ã > > SysOp myself, so there is no real motivation for me to do so.ã > ã > Yes, I understand your point(s). And I agree that a SuperBAJA would only beã > minmimal usefullness at this time. But, in the future there could be someã > possibilities opened up with the Linux version of SBBS. Maybe then the PERLã > BAJAPP could actually be very useful?? :)ããWell, one of the advantages of doing this in perl is that it should be 100%ãportable to Linux. Sure, you could do it in C/C++ as well, but then C/C++ãisn't quite as flexible in chewing up a buncha source code and spitting it outãin a different form as Perl is (IMHO). And we're not writing 25,000-line BAJAãprograms are we? So we don't need the improved efficiency of C/C++ to make itãrun fast enough...ããSome months ago I exchanged some messages with DM on the usefulness of a classãof BAJA op. such as PEEK/POOK/EXEC_BUF and I think I convinced DM that theseãwere useful additions to BAJA. If/when he adds them to the BBS there is everyãpossibility that he will enhance the BAJA compiler to utilize them inãfundamentally powerful new ways. And I will probably find my interest in theãSuperBAJA idea reawakened too.ããEr... POKE, not POOK! :)ã---ã þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.netã