Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
From: rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell)
Subject: Re: Clipboard (was Re: The Amiga's Future)
Message-ID: <1991Jun8.044840.1404@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Organization: The Internet
References: <1991Jun7.233654.24493@news.iastate.edu> <1991Jun8.010653.21706@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991Jun8.030855.18976@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 04:48:40 GMT
Lines: 90


In article <1991Jun8.030855.18976@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes:
>rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes:
>
>>   In other words "the Amiga is doomed." Marc, you can apply the above
>>paragraph to System 7.0 's InterApp Communication. It's inferior to
>>the Amiga message system and Arexx
>
>  In what way?

  Real time speed for one. The Amiga's message system is based off its
signal system. If a task is waiting for a certain event, and some
external signal causes that event to happen the waiting task will be run
(even better if it's a very high priority). Since the Mac is not
preemptive, if a task gives up control via WaitNextEvent and an
event arrives, that task won't get the CPU until the other running task
gives up control. 
  Standardization. The Amiga has had interprocess communication from
day 1. It will be awhile before the Mac catches up. Furthermore, I think
the design paradigm most Mac programmers follow is still etched 
in a single-tasking way of thinking (your App owns the system at the
moment.) 
  Speed. Amiga messages are not copied, only pointers are passed, and
messages are reused.
  Arexx. Nuff said. Let me give an example. Any Amiga user could take
a bbs with an Arexx port, add a menu to the board called "Process a
bitmap", he could then set up a front end to ASDG's Art Department
and offer (optionally at a price) Color/Printer processing. Or one could
set up a fast machine with Arexx serial server and allow user to
upload 3d objects and have them rendered by your favorite ray-tracer.
Implementing database services would be very easy with something like
MFF+. Some people say Arexx is too complex, I disagree. Experience
proves otherwise. A large amount of Skyline and C-Net bbses in my area
have been customized totally with Arexx and done by sysops who I consider to
be not very computer literate. In fact, one of them even converted
some basic C64 games to Arexx and put them up as "doors" in his bbs.
Besides, most companies provide sample Arexx scripts for things like
interfacing CED to SAS/C.

  IAC doesn't give you the functionality of the Amiga's signal, message,
and semaphore system.
[enter small tangent]
  Concerning multitasking, does the Mac even define the concept of
pure(reentrable-rexecutable) code? On the Amiga, programs used shared
libraries instead of "link" libraries (on the Amiga, the OS link
library is really a "glue" library). This means executables are
smaller (they don't include extra code that all Apps need). Futhermore,
multiple copies run from the same memory. This allows the Amiga to
run more programs with less memory than other computers do. I could
run 10 copies of my favorite editor right now and only use about 200k
of memory(sans the memory needed for windows). Resident code executes
fast too, no load time whatsoever (even ram disks generate load times)
[end tangent]
>>not many Apple's [sic] will support it
>
>  Not yet, but they will all have to if they want to sell.

  Exactly my point. I'm trying to point out the flaw in Marc's
arguement. His article said that no matter _how_ good the Amiga's
clipboard got in the future it would never surpass the Mac's because
the current apps don't support it. This is BS and a double-standard.
If the clipboard can never surpass the Macs because "current apps
don't support it." Then the same applies to the Mac in the subjects of
preemptive multitasking, a real time message system, a built in
scripting language, balloon help, and whatever else you want to
throw in. The Amiga market will adjust to OS changes just as the
Mac market will. If you treat this arguement any differently
than you are applying a double-standard and changing the rules
you are judging each system by, which means you're not worth debating.
("you" normally means Marc, but it can apply to you too if you choose
to adopt the arguement "X can _never_ be as good as Y because X
isn't supported fully yet at _this_ time, however if Y gets new
features that X had, Y will be better because Y will automagically be
supported by all apps." )




>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu  
>"And in the death, as the last few corpses lay rotting in the slimy
> thoroughfare, the shutters lifted in inches, high on Poacher's Hill..."


--
/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu     *   // The opinions expressed here do not      \
| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net  | \X/  in any way reflect the views of my self.|
\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023        *                                              /