Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!gmdzi!strobl From: strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: The Mac's resource fork: does Win 3 have one? Message-ID: <3070@gmdzi.UUCP> Date: 9 Jul 90 22:59:10 GMT References: <2322.268f7cca@csc.anu.oz> <2964@gmdzi.UUCP> <7705@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> <2966@gmdzi.UUCP> <23070@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <2987@gmdzi.UUCP> <1990Jul8.075651.11009@supernet.UUCP> Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, F. R. Germany Lines: 34 cluther@supernet.UUCP (Clay Luther) writes: >strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >>This includes Windows Programmers, too. There seems to be NO DIFFERENCE >>between MS Windows and the Macintosh OS, here. Both separate >>programs into a user interface part (icons, bitmaps, menues, keyboard >>accelerators, string constants, dialog boxes, ...) and the algorithmic >>part. Both do not need a recompilation for changing the user interface. >>Wolfgang Strobl >Hmm, well, actually, code is stored in the resource fork. The data fork is used >to store just that, data. Actually, the way I think of it is: (explanation of resource handling on Macs deleted) This is getting out of context. My above remark was a reply to a misleading statement about Windows, which compared the ability of the Mac OS to handle user interface changes like translation into foreign languages without recompilation with the pretended inability of MS Windows to do that. Besides, code needs recompilation, right? Anyway, thanks for your description of the Macs resource model. I is an definite advantage to have such structures built right into the file system, and MS Windows is surely lacking such support from MSDOS's file system. Some support has been put into the new load module format Windows uses, but the API access is static and there is no similar thing for data files, so far. But that's nothing which couldn't be changed by putting a new file system below Windows. Wolfgang Strobl #include