Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!torrie From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) Subject: IAC (was Re: Clipboard (was Re: The Amiga's Future)) Message-ID: <1991Jun8.074935.781@neon.Stanford.EDU> Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA References: <1991Jun7.233654.24493@news.iastate.edu> <1991Jun8.010653.21706@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991Jun8.030855.18976@neon.Stanford.EDU> <1991Jun8.044840.1404@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1991 07:49:35 GMT Lines: 110 rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >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. Yep, for sure. Chalk one up for the Amiga. > Standardization. The Amiga has had interprocess communication from >day 1. It will be awhile before the Mac catches up. Yes, but as you mention in your clipboard example, this is not really a technical advantage. Indeed, Apple (as they have done with most things) have set pretty strong standards for things like AppleEvents (with required, core, functional-area and finally custom events), so I would expect all major developers to have a very strong incentive to build IAC into their programs. Just as a question, to what extent is Amiga IPC standardised? I take it that Arexx is the method of standardisation? Who defines Arexx? How does one program know what messages another program can accept? Are there set messages defined for things like "Drag this object to this location"? > Speed. Amiga messages are not copied, only pointers are passed, and >messages are reused. Does Amiga IPC work across a network (I'm asking, I don't know)? i.e. can one Amiga program send a low-level message to a program on another machine? That's one of the more powerful features of System 7 IAC vs for example, Microsoft's DDE. IAC is totally transparent across the network. > 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. There are equivalent products for Mac IAC, such as ControlTower, Frontier, and eventually AppleScript, all based on top of AppleEvents. So, Arexx has a head start, but once again, I don't think it's a technical advantage. Using your "there's no reason why it shouldn't be able to surpass the other in the future" applies here. > 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. I think the whole question here is how strictly enforced these "standards" are. You're right in that there's no reason why the clipboard couldn't be better than the Mac's. But Marc's also right in saying that if applications don't support it, then the technical superiority is wasted. So the question is: will applications support it? Apple has a reasonably good track history of "telling" developers what they, at the minimum, must support. For example, the style guidelines, the standard Edit menu, support of a clipboard, a standard file open dialog box, printing, support of PICT and TEXT formats, etc. This guarantees that users get the most out of applications, because they know that all applications support those features. If some developer decides not to support those features (such as with some of the early DOS ports), the product dies a quick and painful death because customers just won't buy it. Commodore does not seem to have such a good track record with the Amiga [e.g. the clipboard/a standard file requester]. For example, as mentioned above, Apple has enforced a standard that all applications being developed now and in the future should support at the very least required and core Apple events. Is there any such standard on the Amiga, or is it left up to the developer? There's also a difference in market, which will tend to compel Mac applications developers to include a sophisticated feature like IAC, namely, that there are more high-powered productivity applications users on Macs than there are on Amigas. Someone doing DTP for example would love to have AppleEvents to be able to flow incoming text off the modem from Microphone II V4.0 into Pagemaker 5.0. And there's a huge market of people out there who need this. Is the market for Amiga users as large? If not, will applications developers be so compelled to support it? Anyway, enough of this rambling. My main point is that with IAC (of which the clipboard is one small example), it's the definition of standards between developers that is critical to its success. If the OS developer acts as the central repository and driving force behind these standards, you're likely to end up with more support for the feature than leaving it to individual developers to work it out for themselves. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "And remember, whatever you do, DON'T MENTION THE WAR!"