Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!uunet!intercon!amanda@mermaid.intercon.com
From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: International (was: Is multifinder or finder running??)
Message-ID: <1623@intercon.com>
Date: 13 Dec 89 19:19:22 GMT
References: <17708@ea.ecn.purdue.edu> <9190@hoptoad.uucp> <17695@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <9247@hoptoad.uucp> <17864@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <1989Dec11.172400.25746@agate.berkeley.edu> <9276@hoptoad.uucp> <17893@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Sender: news@intercon.com
Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Lines: 31

Yowza! There's some major miscommunication going on here, I think...

In article <17893@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle
R. Horton) writes:
> In article <9276@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
> >All this stuff
> >about international usage is beside the point, since no development
> >version with flaws this serious should be propagated beyond the local
> >site.
> 
>      International usage is NOT beside the point, and should NEVER be
> considered to be beside the point.

They way I read Tim's posting was that the international considerations were
beside the point *precisely* because you should never actually distribute
software that would "need" the hack being discussed.

For real software, international issues cannot be ignored, but neither
can things like MultiFinder compatibility, memory usage, and so on.  One
of the threads that has been part of this discussion all along is that
there is no acceptable way to test whether or not you are running under
MultiFinder.  Ignoring localizability certainly isn't any worse than
ignoring MultiFinder compatibility and awareness...

Sounded to me like Tim was saying something on the order of "If you're
making mud pies, you might as well not worry about how much sugar to
put in," rather than "sugar isn't important for baking pies" :-).

Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation
--