Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gblock From: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release Message-ID: <11476@uwm.edu> Date: 27 Apr 91 06:04:26 GMT References: <6o6G#_oz1@cs.psu.edu> Sender: news@uwm.edu Reply-To: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu Lines: 91 Originator: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu From article <6o6G#_oz1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > Sometimes this is simply not true. That depends on the windowing > system used, among other things. It's (messydos) is built to use custom chips and special techniques. And since your compiler doesn't support these options, it isn't standard, portable code. Very little on the Amiga in the way of well-done interactive programs are portable. Well, portable, and still keep the same feel and responses. > Wrong. The PC is a standard! I hate to break it to you. A standard what? Who proclaimed it standard, and what standard is that? Is it the XT, the AT, or the 386, or even the 486 that is standard? Which architecture? ISA? EISA? MCA? Which BIOS? What voltage powersupply? And why is it that the Mac doesn't follow the standards, which is what they seem to love to do over at Apple? THEY have a standard Finder, and a standard guideline for programs. Why? Because they SET IT. IBM set no standards. Why? Because you can't set something as widely-diversible as a computer. Okay, if there is any standard to be set by IBM, it's the standard IBM system to be used with an Intel processor. When you say Intel, you think IBM. When people (most) think computer, most often you'll hear C= 64. Why? Cause tons of people have them. Then, IBM. And then, Mac, ST, Amiga. You don't think of a computer as a Next. Because the NeXT isn't a computer, it's a WORKSTATION. And when it comes to workstations, most people think of anything BUT the NeXT or the Amiga SYSVr4 systems. DEC, Sun, and Iris are the first to pop into many minds... IBM computers aren't a standard, they're a trend, and they're also the most widely used. So? That in itself doesn't make them a standard. Maybe they are thought of first in certain applications, but NOT in general usage. It's a little too broad for that. > Buy an Objective C compiler for the PeeCee or Sun workstation then. > Objective C is a lot easier to learn than C++, which I learned first. Yes, but that doesn't make it standard. And I do believe that more people know C++ than Objective. > The only other IB that I've seen is one for the Sun, and NeXT's looked > better. Yes, but then again, there are at least more than one for the Sun, aren't there? And since Sun's use a standard language... You must use objective C to use the IB at all, or you're stuck writing lots of hard stuff. Because windows on the Next, I imagine, are more than simply defining the structure, there's DP involved. > > So you aren't able to go in a tweak it once you're done, eh? What happens > if you have some last-minute changes? If you're lucky they were smart > enough to allow IB to load the binary and allow you to modify it. > Otherwise you're SOL. > > You can reload the binary files(.nib) into Interface Builder as many > times as you want and make as many changes as you want. No doing anything by hand though. It's either all or none, give or take. > > I don't see the advantage of _not_ having actual source for it. You don't > have to look at the code if you don't want to. Just link it in. Also, > given code you can use a more optimizing compiler on it, and you can read > it if you need to learn how to work with the GUI yourself. > > Actually, I think the binary file files aren't executable code because > the .nib files didn't need to be changed when they were ported the the > IBM RS/6000 running NeXTStep. > > If you think having source is better, then tell Commodore. When they > release their IB with Amiga DOS 3.0 in 1999, you will have the IB that > you've always wanted. Most programmers on the Amiga DON'T need or want an IB. And they're available, so if you do, you can use them. It's not hard to use Intuition in programming, just a matter of defining exactly what you want, or customizing at will. No forced footsteps, no bridge over death. Just a beaten path, and stray footsteps. Use what you like, toss what you don't. It may not be as fast to do it by hand on the Amiga compared to doing it on a NeXT's IB, but doing it by hand on both will give us a hands-down victory. In speed, anyways. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba