Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!cbmvax!ken
From: ken@cbmvax.commodore.com (Ken Farinsky - CATS)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: An Intuition.device?
Message-ID: <14348@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 11 Sep 90 13:38:56 GMT
References: <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Reply-To: ken@cbmvax.commodore.com (Ken Farinsky - CATS)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 26

In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu writes:
>   There have been messages here in which some people have complained 
>about how much easier it is to develop software under on the NeXT and
>on IBM & clones under Windows 3.0.  My question is: why wasn't this
>addressed in AmigaOS2.0?

David Junod (CATS) is working on some tools to simplify the programming
of the machine.  Hopefully this will make the programmers job easier.

>...Had Intuition been made a 
>device, software development would have been a hundred times easier,

I don't see how this follows.  Programming intuition would have been
about the same if it were a device, except calls would have been
DoIO() instead of OpenWindow().  I personally find the OpenWindow()
type of interface clearer than filling in a structure and calling
DoIO()/SendIO().  Each to his/her own, I guess.

Could you explain how making intuition a device would simplify the
programming task?

-- 
--
Ken Farinsky - CATS - (215) 431-9421 - Commodore Business Machines
uucp: ...{uunet,rutgers}!cbmvax!ken
bix:  kfarinsky