From: rfentima@ub.d.umn.edu (Robert Fentiman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications,comp.sys.amiga.introduction,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Programming
Date: 15 Nov 92 03:53:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: ub.1e5rq2INNa7e
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth
NNTP-Posting-Host: ub.d.umn.edu

In article <mwm.2ndl@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:

>Selective eyesight, huh. Cool. Or maybe you didn't see "from the
>evidence I have". Of course, that AMOS can open new screens doesn't
>take it out of that class - all package in that class open their own
>screens, or even new ones, and the user can control the modes. But you
>still always have to operate on THOSE screens, not WB screens.

Neither you or I have proven our points.  I *may* have seen something
somewhere that can open a window on WB.  But, as I said before, that is
NO reason to discount the language.  BTW, nothing wrong wiht my
eyesight, just yours again. you said Amos has to work in that SCREEN. 
Thsi is singualr, and from it can be derrived that you don't understand
that AMOS can use MULTIPLE SCREENS.

>> >The other problems are all in the same class - I've never seen an AMOS
>> >program that does things correctly,
>> 
>> All programs do things as well as they are PROGRAMMED.
>
>Exactly. If you check out my other posts, you'll see that the problem
>is that it appears that the AMOS package is programmed do things
>incorrectly.  If this is true, then it is impossible to produce
>system-compliant programs with AMOS.

And if you check my other posts, you notice I'm saying that it is not a
problem, but it allows me to to have, say, more sprites on the screen
than you can (and other little tricks).  Anyway, as I keep saying, this
is NO reason to discount the language (even if if *may* be true).

>> >No, it doesn't. It's not being able to allow those things that make a
>> >language unusable for specific things (note: this is NOT the same
>> >thing as bad; if the application at hand needs to do those things,
>> >then not being able to not do them isn't a problem).
>> 
>> AMOS is NOT a bad language just because it doesn't fit YOUR needs (it
>> fits many others).
>
>More seletive eyesight, huh. Please READ the parenthetical comment.
>Also note that the bugs appear to be in the AMOS package, as opposed
>to the language. If the package is unable to produce a
>system-compliant package, then it's best avoided by everyone.

Your eyesight again.  You were responding to my comment on C, not AMOS. 
Forgetful too, huh.  Well for the 5th time (3rd in this post alone),
AMOS is NOT buggy.  Refer to my previous references to this.  Your
suggestion is unwarrented.

>> know if it can do these things or not (and neither do you, since it is
>> OBVIOUS you have no experience with it besides deleting it's programs).
>
>No, I also watch them come up and prove that they, LIKE EVERY OTHER
>AMOS PROGAM I'VE EVER SEEN, aren't compliant with the rules for
>AmigaDOS programs. If I'd EVER seen an AMOS program behave in a
>system-compliant manner, I'd just assume that most AMOS programmers
>are incapable of producing a system-compliant program, rather than that
>the AMOS package is incapable of producing a system-compliant program.

I'm still waiting for that list you know...   I bring up a point about
many Euro-Demos, a LOT of people like them, they are imporessive, and
many are NOT AmigaDOS programs (and there are many examples in this in
other languages such as assembler, C , others).
 
>> I have not seen ANY of your messages on the net.
>
>Just more selective eyesight, huh?

No, just the absence of you messages (or are you posting on
comp.sys.IBM.advocay?

>> And if you actually
>> have been reading messages, you would note the AMOS programmers out
>> there (unless you don't consider us "programmers" because we use BASIC).
>
>Yes, I've seen people saying "How do I make AMOS do X", where X is
>usually unrelated to the question at hand. I don't feel it's reasonable
>to interrupt a thread with such an unrelated response. (As opposed to
>questioning someone claiming that it's possible to produce
>system-compliant code when I've never seen it done).

Maybe if you actually post, you might get a response (if you haven't
noticed, one or two others HAVE posted on this subject SINCE WE HAVE STARTED). 

>> >Hmm - I wonder if AMOS programs run on an A4000. I'll have to go find
>> >out.
>>
>> I'd be interested in finding out if it does work on an A4000.  Please
>> post your results.  But also keep in mind that AMOS has come out with a
>> new version RECENTLY.
>
>That AMOS requires upgrades to run on new machines or OS's is a
>SERIOUS mark against it. That kind of behavior is acceptable in games,
>but not in anything you actually use.

Throw out the you new compilers, everyone!  They were upgraded so they
work better, making the language useless!  GREAT POINT!  NOTE: Amos Pro,
improvements: much better editor, Arexx support, better supports for
graphics, sound, et.

NOTE: To my knowlege, Mandarin software has NEVER released a version of
AMOS just for a new OS.  The new version I speak of is Amos Pro, adding
200 new commands to make it more versatile.  It has NOTHING to do with a
new OS.

>BTW, you might be interested to know that the AMOS programs I have
>handy fall flat on their faces under 3.0. Just the usual AMOS
>"futz-the-copper-list" garbage, then a blank screen. This sure look
>like the result of AMOS acting like everything written in it is a
>game, instead of actually letting the programmer have some control of
>those things.

Since you OBVIOUSLY don't program in AMOS, you have NO merrit on this. 
I count no less than 7 specificly copper control commands in AMOS. 
Besides, a LOT of programs don't work when you upgrade to a new OS
(including some languages). 

>> this point.  AMOS is a VERY GOOD language for beginners (please read my
>> other posts concerning this point).
>
>The language may be fine. Please read my replies, and you'll see why
>the evidence at hand makes letting beginners use the AMOS package is
>like letting a beginning driver start with a tank.
>
>	<mike

A matchbox tank, sure.  Read my posts and also notice that an AMOS
programmer does NOT write the interpreter or the compiler and such.  
They actually program in the LANGUAGE.  The language is easy, and
beginers don't make such utilities that need to be system compliant.

	Thanks
	Robert Fentiman

UseNet: rfentima@ub.d.umn.edu
At: University of Minnesota, Duluth
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications