From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: Programming
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 3.4, 1992/08/12 15:49:52
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 17 Nov 92 10:38:30 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <92321.133303DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
> In article <mwm.2njn@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us>, mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us
> (Mike Meyer) says:
> >> LOTS of stuff.  I HIGHLY doubt that multimedia or presentation tools
> >> have the versatility of AMOS.  How many multimedia programs let you
> >> write spreadsheets and databases.
> 
> >Most of them.
> 
> Name just one.

Can do: CanDo can do those things.

> Yes, the only thing that matters is what YOU care about. If it doesn't
> satisfy YOUR needs, then it MUST be junk. Again, name JUST ONE

Nope; if it's incapable of producing bug-free program, then it must be
junk. And how about AmigaVision?

> "multimedia tool" that you refer to. Although, since you imply more
> than one, I would prefer a list. I will email you a 10-line AMOS demo and
> you can duplicate with this tool. (NOT)

Better yet, mail me a 10-line AMOS demo that doesn't screw up
commodities.

> >If AMOS is so all-fired easy, it should be *TRIVIAL* to write a
> >utility (any utility; you choose it) that meets those criteria.
> 
> Well, since it isn't, I guess AMOS wasn't designed to create the
> boring, slow, graphics-less, animation-less, copper-less, *AMIGA-LESS*
> software you crave.

No, it was designed to create nintendo-like games to work in the
mono-tasking, hardware-bashing, MSDOS-like environment you crave.

> >In the meantime, are you qualified to judge *ALL* other languages?
> >There are LOTS of languages that make assembler or the FORTRAN family
> >(Pascal,C,Algol,etc.) look painful; they share features with the BASIC
> >family. There are languages that let you do the equivalent of your
> >LOADIFF example with 0 lines of code (click on insertion point; click
> >on "loadimage"; use file requester to select the file; done).
> 
> How usefull is that? COme on, I could say "Want to load an IFF?
> No problem, use DPaint!". Use your brain.

Please make sure you know what you're talking about; that's not
DPaint; that's AmigaVision. You know, the point-and-click multimedia
tool that lets you do graphics, animations, and the other stuff you
seem to want badly enough to let it make your system act like a IBM
PC?  Except AmigaVision does it without making your system act so
badly.

> >Ignore the last question - if that's the limit of your experience, you
> >aren't qualified to judge if AMOS is easy. Try AmigaVISION, CanDo,
> >SAS, the Director, Visual Basic, enough Scheme to understand
> >continuations, and SmallTalk. Then tell me that AMOS is
> >"super-simple".
> 
> You're mentioning packages that don't even claim to be full-fledged
> programming languages. And AMOS is easy.

AMOS is EASY. AMOS is EASY. AMOS is EASY. I said it three times, so it
must be true. Odd; it's so easy that no one can create a multi-tasking
friendly application in it. Or maybe that just makes it less than a
full-fledged programming language?

> >All I ask is that someone show that someone state for certain that you
> >can disable the buggy AMOS behavior. That's pretty easy, isn't it.
> 
> Why would I want to disable behavior that let's me write more
> interesting programs, faster?

Because it causes the program to behave in obnoxious ways when it
doesn't need to. C packages have a fairly heavy runtime start up. I
turn it of regularly. AMOS has a VERY heavy (in terms of behavior)
runtime support package. How do you turn it off?

> Have you ever tried to write a simple
> game in 'C' (or pick any language you mentioned above...most of which
> are so rudimentary that it would impossible)? It's a nightmare of
> RKM calls. You can write an interesting program in AMOS without
> reading -anything- but what's in the AMOS manual.

Sigh. You haven't looked into CanDo, have you? Or AmigaVision. You can
write interesting games in either one without reading anything but
their manuals. Unless you're so fascinated by pretty lights that
they're the only thing that make a game interesting.

> >Sorry, I *know* that all languages have advantages over others. AMOS
> 
> Perhaps you could apply that understanding?

Oh, I do. AMOS is pretty clearn all right for writing things that need
lots of fast moving sprites. No problem there. It's pretty clearly NOT
OK for anything that doesn't need that, because it always ties the
system up as if it did need that.

> You call them bugs. They're side effects of the requirements of
> supporting the features that AMOS supports. If you think every routine
> in AMOS should be duplicated, one for games, another (where possible)
> for Intution-compatibility, you're asking for the impossible.

Hmm - I never considered that the AMOS design was sufficiently bad
that *everything* it did was incompatable with intuition. If that's
the case, you're right - I'm asking the impossible. Of course, that
doesn't make AMOS useful for anything more than it is now.

> >Now, which languages have you worked with that meet those
> >qualifications? None in the list you gave earlier, certainly.
> 
> Again, you seem to be blissfully unware that the popular languages
> (take 'C') were not designed out of ignorance. How many langauges have
> you designed? Also, how fast do you think this hypothetical language
> will be? If it's slower than 'C', no-one will use it for commercial
> software.

I've probably not designed more than a dozen languages. That
"hypothetical" one isn't; there are a number of such languages around.
And yes, people *do* use them for commercial software. Of course, your
basic contention is wrong: C++ is replacing C in lots of places, and
it's tends to be slower C.

> >> Do they have the same graphics, sound, and
> >> animation capability with the same ease.
> 
> >I don't know, but I suspect the answer is "yes".
> 
> Then you don't know what you're talking about AT ALL.

Oh? What languages have you compared AMOS to? C?

> >> To play a MOD file in amos, you type Music "<music name>".
> 
> >What? No point-and-shoot? And you call this simple?
> 
> Yes. And I'd call that comment stupid.

You're right - saying "Music <music name>" is simple is stupid.

> >> Are they limited to a compiler or an interpreted environment?
> 
> >Some yes, some no.
> 
> Really? I'm not aware of any "presentation tool" type stuff with a
> compiler available. Name them.

You should pay attention to the context; we were talking about other
languages that were as "simple" as AMOS. Not presentation tools. You're
right - I dont know of a compiled presentation tool. However, I do know
of languages that are noticably simpler to use than BASIC that have
both environments available.

> >> Do they support CDTV?
> 
> >All of them can be used on CDTV.
> 
> I know AMigaVision can't be. CDTV is a 1MB system, and AmigaVision
> won't fit.

You're right - you can't develop AmigaVision scripts on a CDTV. You
can run them, though.

> >Yes, there are. And their professional programs *behave*
> >professionally - they don't shut down intuition control, and they
> >don't interfere with the operation of other programs. The
> >"professional" AMOS programs I've seen don't manage that.
> 
> Style over substance seems to be a motif in your comments.

Actually, it's proper system interaction over flash. I'm sorry, but
pretty light shows don't impress me nearly as much as solid, reliable,
well-behaved programs.

> Who cares if it's junk and expensive and late to market as long as it
> meets the style guide...

Whereas AMOS programs are junk and overpriced and don't ever get to
market? At least, you claim you've not seen an commercial AMOS
programs.

	<mike