From: mikeh@starnine.UUCP (Mike Haas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac OS just sucks -- "ease of use" = "lack of freedom" ?
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:02:47 GMT
Reply-To: mikeh@starnine.UUCP
Organization: StarNine Techonoligies, Inc., Berkeley

In article <1992Apr08.171609.10698@crash.cts.com| dvan@pnet01.cts.com (David Vandeven) writes:
|
|First, *I* am writing the shell, not Apple.

Encouraging...may have less bugs in it.

|Second, almost EVERY platform I
|can think of offhand has a user interface replacement (shell) available.
|Including the lowly c64. (GEM!)

Except for the lowly mac.  You may change that if your's actually comes
out.

|Third, script and batch control of programs, including interprocess control
|similar to AREXX is one of the things taking me so damn long.  

The other thing taking you so damn long is you are programming on the mac.
And when you're done, it won't multitask for shit.

|But I'll tell
|you this, it sure is easier to write a control script for a program that has
|standardized menu resources 

Why?

|(and therin is one of the MAJOR weaknesses of
|Amiga OS.  RESOURCES! Anyone that has ever programmed on the Macintosh knows
|how qabsolutely lovely ResEdit is!) 

I've programmed the mac for 6 years and I don't agree.  ResEdit is the
most buggy piece of mucus I've ever come across.  Always crashes
when you really can't afford it to.  Just try copying CODE resources larger
that 10-15K between two applications.

Another glorious CODE-resource benefit... 32k limitations on size (even
the lowly 68000 can directly address 16 Meg!!!).

|is sure a lot easier than having to read a
|damn manual.

Yup, lots of things are easier than learning to read.

IAnd oh, 100% compatibility?  Stick that in AREXX.

Stick it in the Quadra.  Or any apple product.  I use AREXX 1.6 (old)
on my A1000 inder 1.3 and the latest & greatest on my A3000 under 2.0.
I've written interactive compilers and text editors, all have AREXX ports.
I have YET to find a difference between the old & the new.

Now... pay attention to your next statements (you're learnin')...

|Golly!  Anyway, Apple had a design philosophy that might now be obselete,
|people WANT more power over the OS.

|But the ease with which a programmer can
|implement a shell to deliver that power is testament to the well-designed
|modularity of the Macintosh OS.  

Damn...there you go & blow it again.  How many steps does it take
to open your shell window with size, depth-arrangement & close controls?
Here it is on the amiga...

   fopen("CON:10/10/620/200/Shell Window",MODE_NEWFILE);

It even has full command-line editing & history...FREE!

(NOTE: this is not to open a system shell, but a window for you're
program to implement it's own!)

Now, bacvk to your resources...here's a testimony to the "well-designed
modularity" of the Mac.  Did you know the result code from GetNewDialog()
is undefined?  YOU CAN'T TELL IF IT FAILS!!!  Tech note #4 even
tries to justify why this OK!!!  Believe me...you can breathe a sigh
of relief with every dialog your mac puts up without crashing!
(Apple could have fixed this anytime...could only have improved the
situation!).

|And another thing, anyone that has done serious programming on both platforms
|knows that there is a startling similarity between the way both systems are
|designed.  Form follows function!

The mac and the amiga are as different inside as night & day.
GIMMEZEROZERO, SUPERBITMAP, or SIMPLEREFRESH windows.  Custom Screens.
IDCMP ports.  True pre-emption.  Mountable devices.  Device-independant
I/O.  Fast, transparent DMA.  Video-coprocessors (standard).  Stereo
sound (standard).  Genlock-capable (standard).  Color (standard).
etc. etc. etc.

Well, they both use Motorola family CPU's, anyway.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy