Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bu.edu!m2c!umvlsi!dime!lee From: lee@quincy.cs.umass.edu (Peter Lee) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Speed versus whatever (vi versus Nisus; Unix versus Macintosh) Message-ID: Date: 15 Jan 91 19:21:29 GMT References: <470@eiffel.UUCP> <19413@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <5966@stpstn.UUCP> <1991Jan4.225943.540@tc.fluke.COM> Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu Organization: The Software Development Lab at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst Lines: 62 In-reply-to: melling@cs.psu.edu's message of 5 Jan 91 21:19:03 GMT In article melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: Path: dime!umvlsi!m2c!bu.edu!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!news From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Date: 5 Jan 91 21:19:03 GMT References: <470@eiffel.UUCP> <19413@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <5966@stpstn.UUCP> <1991Jan4.225943.540@tc.fluke.COM> Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Organization: Penn State Computer Science Lines: 35 Nntp-Posting-Host: client6.cs.psu.edu In article <1991Jan4.225943.540@tc.fluke.COM> mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) writes: First and foremost there are fundamental user interface differences (textual vs graphical). Graphical user interfaces are much harder. They take a significant percentage of your development resources (time, personnel, testing, etc). You never have infinite development resources, so something has to give. [stuff deleted] There are some technical differences, and though no one of them causes a problem, they do add up. Instead of byte stream files, MacOS has structured files (data and resource forks). Things that are hard-coded in UNIX programs are often dynamically loaded resources in Macintosh programs. The Mac does not have virtual memory, instead using small heaps allocated via doubly-indirected pointers (so heap compaction is a problem). The Mac community expects binary compatibility across OS versions and new hardware platforms. The Mac does not have memory protection, which makes debugging harder. What I'm getting at is that there may be more complexity for the "same" job, leading to a problem similar to that of user interfaces: if it is hard it takes more effort, and you always have limits on your development resources. So, what would happen if a company built a computer that used Unix, then added a GUI comparable to that of the Macintosh, and to top it off, they did all the tedious user interface work for the software developer? I think the next few years should prove to be an interesting time for software developers. -Mike It strikes me that what you are describing is exactly what NeXT did -- the NeXTStep GUI runs on top of a MACH Kernel, and the Interface Builder application is supposed to greatly ease software development. Of course it's noticeably sluggish on a 68030 (largely, I'm told, from the use of Postscript as the unified imaging model). We'll see how they fare as the 68040 based models start becoming more widespread... -- |- Peter E. Lee, Staff Assistant -| | Software Development Lab at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst | | lee@cs.umass.edu or Fuligin@umass.bitnet or (413) 256-1329 | "When you expect whistles, it's flutes. When you expect flutes, it's whistles"