Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!convex.convex.com!ewright From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ? Message-ID: Date: 10 Sep 90 21:41:50 GMT References: <25541.26DA84DD@stjhmc.fidonet.org> <1385@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> <1990Aug30.194221.29942@phri.nyu.edu> <11219@claris.com> <1990Aug31.021020.7897@phri.nyu.edu> <14588@yunexus.YorkU.CA> Sender: news@convex.com Lines: 53 philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: >What is the big deal about using lots of programs? By and large you are all >talking about launching programs, file manipulation, general i/o. Once in the >program, the Mac interface and the lack of a CLI can be a serious drawback. But there's nothing stopping a Mac programmer from coding up a command-line interface as part of an application. The fact that this is so rarely done is because Macintosh programmers and the marketers they work for realize that Macintosh users will not accept this archaic technology. If a CLI is needed anywhere, it is for programming, and Apple has provided one in the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop (MPW), but most programmers prefer to use Think Pascal and C which use the Mac interface! >Moreover, serious users rarely use more than a few programs, as your typical >program of substance takes a while to learn anyway. Which is a real advantage for the CLI, right? It keeps the non-serious users from touching your "program of substance." >A good example is S, a statistical interactive graphics program NOT >available for the Mac( but available for 386's) which is THE tool of >use for people doing research in data analysis. There is no Mac interface, >and the advantages gained by having one are simply outwayed by the fact >that the interface is one reason the program is not available. Well, if the lack of a command-line interface is all that's stopping the programmers from porting this wonder tool to the Mac, why don't they just make it a tool to run under the MPW shell, or code their own CLI? A good example is Mathematica, available on the Mac, which has its own command-line interface. >The lack of a CLI and preemptive multitasking( and piping,etc...) are serious >problems for the Mac. Unless you want to see the Mac relegated to the DTP, >spreadsheet and painting worlds... which are only a thousand times than the market of "people doing research in data analysis" whom Apple should cater to instead... >you would be better off encouraging Apple to get on with improving >its OS, its A/UX so that the wonderful hardware platform isn't wasted >on MacWrite and MacPaint. Instead, the hardware will be so loaded down with baroque operating system "enhancements" that it runs like a dog. Why is it the people who say the Mac needs multitasking, piping, etc. are always peopl who use other machines anyway? They are the same people who tout the advantages of UNIX and proclaim it as an "emerging standard" -- a line I've been hearing for the last five years, and it hasn't emerged yet folks!