Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean!sibyl!ian
From: ian@sibyl.eleceng.ua.OZ (Ian Dall)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: OS/2, PC's, etc...
Message-ID: <532@sibyl.eleceng.ua.OZ>
Date: 7 Apr 90 05:14:51 GMT
References: <9004040041.AA05123@decwrl.dec.com> <19214@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <367@jove.dec.com> <19267@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <22946@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <19338@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Reply-To: ian@sibyl.OZ (Ian Dall)
Organization: Engineering, Uni of Adelaide, Australia
Lines: 57

In article <19338@boulder.Colorado.EDU> wallwey@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes:
>>As to software
>>development environments, these remarks reveal only ignorance.
>
>Have you seen Microsoft C 5.1 or the Newer version 6.0 or even the new
>32-bit version later this year-They where "ANSI-C" compatible even before
>the ANSI group completely announced their final version!
> .
> .
> .
> Granted there may even be more editors available
>for UNIX, but the true standard, which I by the way think is very poor
>considering we are in the 90's with multiple MB machines, is vi.

I don't like vi either. Note however, that you are comparing a bunch
of extra software with what comes included in unix. Hardly a valid
comparison.

>95% of us use it. Even emacs on unix is better, but its not exactly that
>"easy" to use and never seems to have a standard key binding.

Well, change them! I personally consider GNU emacs, gcc and gdb make
for a very productive programming environment. I'm not sure, but I
suspect the Turbo Pascal/C style of edit/execute/debug functionality
might be emacs inspired rather than the other way around!

In an attempt to make this thread somewhat more "architectural", I
think your original point was that the ability to make "shrink
wrapped" binary software distributions was a significant factor in
making an architecture attractive.

I wonder if this is fundamentally true, or whether the public just
doesn't care? Would they really care if there auto installation (*) did a
compliation instead of just copies and edits? The big variable in
making the installation of unix software (from source) idiot proof is
variants of the operating system. It is rare that the actual machine
architecture intrudes. It *is* possible to make the installation idiot
proof if you constrain your software to running on only the major unix
variants.  That is still an improvement on the One OS/One Architecture
PC world.

If you want a good example of copeing with a very large range of Unix
variants almost automatically, try installing one of Larry Wall's
programs sometime!

(*) I *hate* autoinstallations. You never know what they are doing behind
    your back. It wouldn't be so bad if they actually told you what they
    are doing, but usually it is totally undocumented what files are modified,
    what new files are created, whether backup copies are made of any files
    which are modified and how to uninstall the changes if necessary.
    (This experience was actually with kernel changes to Xenix to support
    new hardware. But I should think it is generally applicable). The shrink
    wrap software purveyors attitude is "trust us". I am unhappy with that. I
    want to know what is going on on any system I have control over.
-- 
Ian Dall     life (n). A sexually transmitted disease which afflicts
                       some people more severely than others.