Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Problems for a new IIGS user (FST's)
Message-ID: <11612@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 15 Nov 89 23:25:02 GMT
References: <2634.cortland.info-apple@pro-houston>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 15

In article <2634.cortland.info-apple@pro-houston> dkl@pro-houston.cts.com (David Karl Leikam) writes:
>  And if it's the case that they must be SO strictly drawn that little or no
>development of that kind is possible, then I must ask, "Why have FST's, or the
>capability for them, at all? If they can't be implemented, why waste the disk
>space and time to store/access 'em as separate files, rather than embedding
>the code into the rest of the O/S???"

The answers to that should be obvious to any software engineer.

The only question I have is, why the ballyhoo about FSTs and not
about the system call switchout table, or whatever other nifty
technology might be embedded within GS/OS's design?  If the idea
was to let us know that more FSTs could be expected, then why not
let us know definitely which ones and when we can expect them?
It would help our own long-range planning.