Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cbmvax!peter
From: peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: An Intuition.device?
Message-ID: <14358@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 11 Sep 90 20:35:45 GMT
References: <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Reply-To: peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 69

In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) 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?

This area HAS been addressed with a significant and coordinated effort
in 2.0.  Here are some examples:

	Tag-based OpenScreen and OpenWindow,
	Many new DOS calls, including pattern match,
	Standard file requester,
	Standard font requester,
	Gadget toolkit including menus, scrolling lists, mutually exclusive
		gadgets,
	"boopsi" gadget classes,
	etc.

I might also add that the guys who put together the examples for the 1.3
Rom Kernal Manuals went to great lengths to ensure that they worked as
intended.  People learning from the 1.3 RKMs have it a lot easier than
those who had to work from the 1.1 or 1.0 (or earlier) volumes.

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

I don't see how calling a device is easier than calling a library.  There
are many other issues too, even if it were a good idea.  How much slower
would it run, if at all?  How much more ROM space and programmer effort
would it take?  Would we rather spend that ROM space and programmer time
somewhere else?  (I keep hearing many suggestions for enhancements, and
I can only assume that most folks would like to see effort go "somewhere else")

>   The big thing about this idea is that it can still be done.  There
>is absolutely no reason why this Intuition device could not still be
>written.  Existing programs would continue to call the Intuition routines
>directly, but future programs could use the Intuition device instead,
>speeding development of future software.

Perhaps there is no reason why it couldn't be done.  However, there
would have to be compelling reasons to do it.  I don't think you've
presented any.

>   If Commodore will not produce this Intuition device, I wish some
>other enterprising Amiga developer would.  This would be a great boost
>to the Amiga, and would constitute the first major addition to the Amiga's
>OS since the Amiga first came out five years ago.  (As of now, all of
>the Amiga's OS enchancements -- including 2.0 -- consist of large
>numbers of minor changes, with no really big changes)

I'm sorry you feel that 2.0 consists of "large numbers of minor changes".
Fortunately for the rest of us, you are in the minority.  There is a lot
of excitement about 2.0, precisely because it represents a very
significant improvement over 1.3.

>                                -MB-

     Peter
--
     Peter Cherna, Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga, Inc.
     {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!peter    peter@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com
My opinions do not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer.
"Very strange... the window is broken on both sides."