Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!navas
From: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: 2.0+ RKM's
Message-ID: <10522@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 28 Jan 91 02:21:06 GMT
References: <1991Jan23.034026.27876@cs.ucla.edu> <17987@cbmvax.commodore.com> <17994@cbmvax.commodore.com> <10511@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <18161@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU
Lines: 45

In article <18161@cbmvax.commodore.com> bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson) writes:
>The Blue RKMs are, as Randell stated, essential in learning to program
>the Amiga. Whats more, I suspect that most anyone that is at the level
>of doing asynchronous DOS functions knows where to get the latest docs
>(2.0 autodocs). They are available to developers. 

Would it scare you to know that I learned asynch I/O without RKM's?  :)
I became a developer more by "accident" than anything else.  Ah, those were
the days... :)

Perhaps I've mistated or mislead my audience.  The RKMs *ARE* essential (well,
it's a whole lot easier with 'em) and most of what you'll learn will translate
across to 2.0 very well indeed.

There are some significant "Zen" differences between 2.0 and 1.3 that you
should be aware of, however.  I/O and intuition differences come to mind most
immediately, though there are others.

Personally I'd use the 1.3RKM + 2.0 include dumps approach, and then become a
developer...  I ran into a book with 2.0DOS stuff explained -- but I didn't
look at it, nor did I buy it.  Does anyone else have any knowledge? 
Unfortunately the book store I saw it in was in Marketplace Mall in Roc. NY,
about 2500 miles from my current location :(

>The fact that the new 2.0 stuff offers some new and better
>functionality certainly doesn't negate the need for the RKMs.

Right, except that 2.0 embodies more than just functionality increase,
there are whole new classes of approaches to some problems -- 1.3 *is*
a good stepping stone, but anyone looking for that object-oriented system
that BYTE describes is going to faint the first time they use intuition :)

>They are
>*the* source for Amiga programming info. Trying to do this without
>them would be a mighty chore, indeed.

Tell us about it...  :|  

[A hint -- the old DOS Bantam Book had about 16 pages devoted to DOS functions.
 My AutoDoc printout for 2.0's DOS is about 200 pages heavy...]


David Navas                                   navas@cory.berkeley.edu
"Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought."  -me
[Senior EECS major, programmer for GeoWorks, author of JazzBench]  (and Calvin)