Re: scsh in PLT Scheme?

[MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>]

Alex:
> * How would I then deal with connecting to RDBMSs? Currently I use
> (Microsoft) ADO (COM) to connect with MS SQL Server. I am assuming that the
> best I could do is some low level connection to Oracle, or perhaps DB2?

What has this to do with POSIX?  ODBC is invariant, for example.

> * How would I integrate with Message Queueing? Currently I use COM and MSMQ

I must admit to not knowing a great deal about this concept.  Looking up
this term in ODP gets me marketing material.  I can't even find a decent
match in VLib.  Is this known by another name?

> * What would I do for a User Interface? Currently I use (in addition to Web
> Browsers to which the answer is easy) Visual Basic forms with lots of OCX
> (COM) user interface widgets (smart grids with built in drop downs,
> toolbars, calendars, ...).

Well, you can use any of many interface toolkits depending on job and
targets, but what has this to do with POSIX?

> * What would I do to program in the Web Server environment? Currently I use
> Active Server Pages. I assume it means using PLT Web Server, or else Apache
> and CGI or mod-xxx?

What has this to do with POSIX?  Personally, I'm amazed that you're still
using ASP.  I assume this means that you don't have separation of concerns?

> * What would I use for email? Currently I use a COM object.

Why not use interfaces to the IETF standards?  Again, little to do with
POSIX, I suspect, although maybe the sendmail system is in there.

> * What would I use for XSLT? (XML seems well covered in Scheme!). Currently
> I use MS XML COM.

What has this to do with POSIX?  (You might like to look at using other
transformation forms than XSLT anyway.)

> * Would Scheme integrate with all of this in a consistent way (as COM does
> now and soon .NET will)?

As far as I can tell, PLT Scheme is already integrated with all of the ones
I understand.  Credit is due.

I think part of your problem is that you are misunderstanding what POSIX is. 
No-one is saying that it is a replacement for .net, or probably even for COM
on the MS platform and ORBs on Unix.  What it is is a very useful set of
basic services built on a mature standard that is an obvious area to
strengthen PLT Scheme with real immediate benefits.

> (COM continues and so is not a lost investment. .NET is interesting because
> it is the future direction, and a useful advancement, from Microsoft.)

COM is useful in some situations, but I think PLT Scheme already has an
interface to that on the MS platform.

.net, on the other hand, is a plan for world domination by Microsoft.  They
control the horizontal and vertical by integrating a large range of useful
technologies which need not necessarily be bound together so tightly but it
suits their purpose.  It's immature and ill-defined as yet, with significant
unanswered questions.  Maybe when it matures it will be useful, but why
waste time on it now when there is so much more to do and it will be less
work later?

> (BTW, Java offers a similar large and consistent set of interoperability.)

Ohhhhhhh, excuse me while I fall about laughing.  It may be large, but it's
not comprehensive and it isn't entirely consistent unless you add
third-party libraries.

> Where I am coming from, is that I have been on an almost two year intensive
> research following the trail of "there has to be a better way". (I develop
> large business applications - Web Commerce, Warehousing and Order
> Processing, ... I am driven to delivering good business solutions cost
> effectively.)

As I said privately: me too.  I appear to have reached different
conclusions, though.

Can you quote normally next time, please? I was jumping around like a bear
who's O/D'd on caffeine while sat on an ants' nest trying to follow the flow
of your message.  I'm still not sure I succeeded.
-- 
MJR