Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!grebyn!ckp
From: ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: An Intuition.device?
Message-ID: <21962@grebyn.com>
Date: 12 Sep 90 23:24:57 GMT
References: <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <20596.26ed0909@psuecl.bitnet>
Reply-To: ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA
Lines: 19

In article <20596.26ed0909@psuecl.bitnet> d6b@psuecl.bitnet writes:
>In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, Marc Barrett <BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu> writes:
>>    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
>
>Sure, and you could turn all the devices into libraries, but why? It's
>pointless.

If the Intuition interface had been a .device, then redirecting that
device to different display hardware may have been easier.  This is not
for certain; it depends on the level of abstraction RJ would
have used by the intuition.device.  I doubt seriously that it would
have made programming any easier.
-- 
First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T  T E C H N O L O G I E S      / /  
                                                                    \\ / /    
Then, the disclaimer:  All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \  / o
Now for the witty part:    I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam!             \/