Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!corton!imag!imag.imag.fr
From: gourdol@imag.imag.fr (Arnaud Gourdol)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: IBM been goowy for along tyme
Message-ID: <17980@imag.imag.fr>
Date: 11 Feb 91 17:01:05 GMT
References: <1991Feb9.035631.15285@gsm001.uucp> <1991Feb9.212956.12871@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@imag.imag.fr
Organization: Grenoble University. IMAG-LGI-IHM Human Interface
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: mac_b2-29.imag.fr

In article <1991Feb9.212956.12871@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@iboga (Mike Berger)
writes:
>gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes:
>>My point?  Good GUI's, good software, etc, are NOT HARDWARE DEPENDENT.
>>The Mac's system makes it easier to code one, as most of it comes in rom.
>*----
>I agree with some of the points you've made in your posting, but I
>couldn't let this pass.  What's the difference whether your GUI support
>library is in ROM or RAM?  In fact, most of the complaints I hear about
>programming the Mac involve the complexity of the ROM calls.  Fortunately,
>the better compilers isolate the programmer from that... just like in the
>PC family.

What?!!?? What's in the Macintosh ROM is like a library. You would link it with
the object code of your program if using a "compiler" approach, but the calls
available will be the same and the complexity will be the same. The complexity
surely DON'T come from the fact it's in ROM or RAM. I am not ver well informed
about the PC world, but I think that Windows works very much like the Macintosh
toolbox, that is, it is not linked your program. The difference of course is
that the Macintosh Toolbox is in ROM and Windows is in RAM.

Arnaud.