Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!munnari.oz.au!murdu!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!u3364521
From: U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: An Intuition.device?
Message-ID: <1032@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: 11 Sep 90 13:43:04 GMT
References: <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Organization: I.A.E.S.R., Melbourne University
Lines: 47

G'day,

{Disclaimer: I haven't even seen the programming environment for OS 2.0.}

MB> In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu
MB> (Marc Barrett) writes: 

MB> There have been messages here in which some people have complained about 
MB> how much easier it is to develop software under on the NeXT and on IBM &
MB> clones under Windows 3.0. My question is: why wasn't this addressed in
MB> AmigaOS 2.0?

Not a flame here...questions. There were a lot of changes that make up OS 2.0,
many seem to be related to providing the basic building blocks for easier s/w
development. Principally I recall the new gadget stuff and a superset(?) of it
.the BOOPSI architecture they invented for OS 2.0.

Perhaps it is still early days to see whether s/w development will be enhanced
and easier with these devlopments.

So my questions.

Are developers happier with s/w development under OS 2.0 ?
What is missing that's make s/w development easier/better?
How do NeXT and Windows 3.0 programmers have it easier? (no flames please)

I read on the net that the NeXT has an easy to use Interface Builder. Perhaps
if Ali Ozer (sp?) is reading this he might describe it a little?

MB> In some of his speeches, RJ Mical has told about how it was the intention
MB> of the original Amiga OS developers to make Intuition a device instead of
MB> a collection of routines (as it is now).  Had Intuition been made a 
MB> device, software development would have been a hundred times easier,
MB> because thing like opening screens and windows, creating menu items, and
MB> receiving mouse input from the user would be done by passing codes to
MB> the Intuition device and receiving information from it.  

I never understood (and still don't now Marc) what RJ meant by those remarks.

Can anyone fill in a little bit more here?

MB> [...further discussion deleted. I'll leave these points to others...]

MB>                                  -MB-

yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.