Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!markv
From: markv@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Short Hello World
Message-ID: <1991May16.102816.30812@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 16 May 91 15:28:16 GMT
References: <4872@orbit.cts.com> <1991May13.190617.1119@cinnet.com>  <1991May16.042906.4763@starnet.uucp>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 62

>  So should we expect to recompile our code every 5 years?! Because CBM
>  will remove some function we used and dont support anymore!

Whoa!  This all was started in particular by a certain
OldOpenLibrary() call.  This function was obsolete with 1.2!!!!  (How
many here remember 1.1?  I even remember 1.0, sheese).  So
OldOpenLibrary() has been obsolete for about 3 years already.  And
other OSs make certain things eventually obsolete also.  How many
programs that were written for DOS 1.1 work these days (try not many).
OSs evolve, and sometimes you need to leave things behind to move to
the future.

>  I cant beleive it even if it come from CBM :-)
>  And the size 'excuse' is pretty funny when you think the major part of
>  what is in ROM is written in C.

Well, most of the ROM is actually in assembler because of size.  And
the specific example is admittidly a bit rediculous.  A more realistic
one is the support for BCPL in 2.0.  The new dos library has no BCPL, but
2.0 still supports it.  That support *is* taking a *lot* of code.

>  And What 1.x calls CBM said not to use anymore because it might
>  desapear?

Well, if you read the Autodocs there are functions that say OBSOLETE,
and tell you the new one to use instead.  This is pretty obvious to
me.  For 2.0, you'd should get rid of BCPLisms, and use the new calls
for one.  Also there are certain internal functions that Commodore has
said dont use ever that may go away (AlohaWorkbench() and Intuition()
come to mind).

>  Dont you think they gave alternate function? Some people might NOT
>  want to do 2.0 softare compatible only...
 
Well, if your using the OS, then it isn't hard to be 2.0 "aware" but
still work under 1.3.  Some of the things that are hacks under 1.3,
but supported under 2.0 are probably better off just done in 2.0, esp.
from the programmers point of view (hardware scrolling of Intuition
screens for instance). 

My net thought is, Follow the rules and things will work for a long
time.  Granted, (esp. pre 2.0) many things weren't possible with the 
rules, but they are still a hack, so by doing such things, your
accepting the possibility that youre on thin ice.

Also, if you've ever worked on other micro OSs, you wouldn't complain so
much.  The Mac OS has already been mentioned, but even DOS is bad.
The things you have to do to make TSRs *really* work, the epheremal
"List of Lists", hidden fields in the PSP,  the elusive DOS data
segment pointer (which can be used to make DOS reentrant, suprise!),
etc.  We have it easy.

> 								Stephan.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Gooderum			Only...		\    Good Cheer !!!
Academic Computing Services	       ///	  \___________________________
University of Kansas		     ///  /|         __    _
Bix:	  mgooderum	      \\\  ///  /__| |\/| | | _   /_\  makes it
Bitnet:   MARKV@UKANVAX		\/\/  /    | |  | | |__| /   \ possible...
Internet: markv@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~