From: matija@avalon.physik.unizh.ch (Matija Milostnik)
Subject: Re: The State of Amiga Software...a proposal
Summary: tooltypes overvrite global preferences
Keywords: tooltypes, styleguide
Organization: Informatik Club d. Universitaet, Zuerich
Distribution: comp.sys.amiga.misc, comp.sys.amiga.programmer, comp.sys.amiga.applications
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:14:25 GMT

In article <C1FrH5.FMq@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> engb@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Ben Eng) writes:
>In <1993Jan24.221918.20148@netcom.com> pockets@netcom.com (Sean C. Cunningham) writes:
>>	I don't know about you, but when I set up my Workbench display, I
>>chose [..]  Most software totally
>>ignores what I, the user, am comfortable with and forces me to deal with
>>what the programmer was comfortable with.
>That's why resources can be defined by the application writers in a
>default app-defaults file, and those resources can be overidden by
>the user in his .Xdefaults file... under X11.  Unfortunately, on
>the Amiga these things are not so straightforward.  There is less of
>a defined convention (if there is one at all) for applications.

The Amiga has a similar facility: Tooltypes

Preferences is a global setting. An application can set their own
defaults within tooltypes. Thus overwriting the global settings and
working globaly, ie in a 'per started application' base. The third
method is to give arguments to the cli prompt overwriting the
tooltypes which overwrite the global settings set by preference :-)

>It is up to the application to use whatever means the programmer
>deems fit to use (or ignore) the Prefs.  And the design of Prefs
>is not general enough to handle application-specific information

Tooltypes or argument passing is a per application setting that
works locally. It has the advantage to set application specific
information without resorting to global resources (ENV variable,
file stored in some overpopulated directory like s:, etc..)

[..]
>It's just one of those little things... So X11 isn't as ugly as
>some people make it out to be.  It has its advantages.  Certainly
>the Amiga has a few things it could learn from X.

And it has. But did the programmers learn?

[..]
>  Frankly, it's probably cheaper to use Gadtools or
>Boopsi and get the look-and-feel for free than to conjure up some
>blasphemous GUI from hell using other means.

But 'Publisher' think they 'must' write 1.x compatible software.
Gadtools and Boopsi didnt exist there. The problem would not arise
if software would be targeted to 2.x or greater.

Now to the original topic:
  The misuse of the green 2.0 compatible sticker is sometimes so 
disapointing that makes the whole work lose credibility.

I would like to see an official commision that sets a minimal set
of requirement to meet for getting the sticker. A list like:
- does it work under x.x (not crashing, no enforecer hits, etc..)
- does it work under Axxxx (is there a chip incompatibility, does it
     recognise memory and other adds on, etc..)
- is it style guide compliant (asl.library, use of clipboard, use of IFF 
     for data storage, Arexx with common set of instruction, etc..)
- was it programmed system freindly(fonts, colors, screens, gadtools,
     boopsi, iffparse, etc..)
- and so on...

The main point is that only programs reaching this goal get the stickers.
But it gets difficult when a well known 'publisher' tryies to push his
'product', only beacuse it 'works fine and we are the #1 selling company
for this kind of product' :-( (N.B. They have the green sticker)

Thats my 1/50$
  Matija
-- 
Best regards from Matija Milostinik           : matija@avalon.physik.unizh.ch
                                              : matija@amiga.physik.unizh.ch
Therefore, use local labels in the procedures as often as possible. 
Save the environment!  Recycle!  ;-)                 (Bjoern Reese)