Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!jmelv
From: jmelv@madnix.UUCP (John Melvin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Difficulty in programming
Message-ID: <1374@madnix.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jun 90 00:32:13 GMT
References: <2487@zipeecs.umich.edu> <1990Jun2.063414.10292@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: MADNIX, operated by: ARP Software  Madison WI
Lines: 61

In article <1990Jun2.063414.10292@agate.berkeley.edu>, laba-1ei@e260-2f.berkeley.edu (Joseph Chung) writes:
> In article <2487@zipeecs.umich.edu> gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin)
> writes:
> >Hi.  I've been watching the discussion of how difficult it is to
> >program the Amiga versus other systems.  I've seen a lot of nonsense.
> >Somebody has been making claims that it is relatively difficult to
> >program the Amiga.  It is just as easy, and often far easier to write
> >stuff for the Amiga than most other systems around.
> > 
> 
> Try this one on for size:
> 
> In an IBM (no flames please!), if I want to put a character anywhere on the
> screen, I just
> 1. load a segment register with the segment of the screen.
> 2. write the proper byte to the screen location (using a simple offset) (In
> short, is a basic POKE command!)
> 
> How would you accomplish this in an Amiga?
> Let's see.
> 1. Create my own screen, or should it be my window (damn, where did I put
>     my copy of NewWindow struct ...)
> 
> The above is just one very tiny example.  In short, I would like you to show
> me how programming a multitasking system can be *easier* than programming a
> monotasking one.
> 

	Let's at least compare apples to apples, not oranges.  Your example
	is based more on the added complexity of a GUI interface rather than
	the specifics of programming on machine or another.  I can tell you
	first hand you IBM becomes quite a bit more like an Amiga once you
	load up you brand-spanking-new Windows 3.0 (esp. with regard to the
	'setup' necessary to have a screen to talk to).  It is _not_ the
	multitasking nature that 'forces' more difficulty, but rather the
	environment attempting to be achieved (specifically the intelligent
	managing of limited resources).  Oh, just to be nasty, I'd like to
	'poke' my char at the 40 1/2 column on the screen -- oh, guess that
	won't work on a strictly columnar screen that is the IBM default :).
	Anyhow, using the console device on the Amiga is just like the PC in
	terms of difficulty if you want a strictly column-based, easy to
	use, minimal programmer difficulty method of output.  How boring.

	John

[d*mmit]
[pnews]
[let]
[me]
[post]
[this]
[article]
[with]
[appropriate]
[context]
[included!]
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
John P. Melvin         "Magic is real -- unless declared integer."
                                                                       //
UUCP:  {harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!jmelv   \X/ AMIGA