Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site axiom.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!linus!axiom!lewis From: lewis@axiom.UUCP (Lewis Gordon Pringle Jr.) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac Subject: Re: Portability of Mac Source Message-ID: <151@axiom.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Dec-85 13:10:13 EST Article-I.D.: axiom.151 Posted: Mon Dec 23 13:10:13 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 01:39:33 EST Organization: Axiom Technology, Newton MA Lines: 32 >Who the &*()%^ cares whether mac code is portable? Why should the power of >the machine be decreased by several orders of magnitude just so the program >will run on stone-age machines? I for one do not want to turn my mac into Well, I think that many people care if mac code is portable. I happen to be good friends with a Lisa owner who REALLY wishes more mac code was portable. Well written programs need not work on only one configuration of one machine, in order to take advantage of 'the power of the machine' that you are running on. I think the attidute that writing mac software is a Holy experience, and mac programs shouldn't be desecrated with hints of portability is a crock. I applaude the macs user-interface, and I think that all mac programs should maintain it, but I am convinced that they can do so and still give thought to the future. What of future genaration macs (the Mac+++^3), and other existing machines (like the Amiga, etc ..). Writting protable code doesn't necessarily mean that you make sure that the program works perfectly on all machines it might ever be run on, but a well designed and implemented program should not be too difficult to port to a simmilar architecture (like Mac to Amiga). I think that most people can deal with not counting on the number of pixels wide the screen is. Merry Christmas, Lewis. -- ---------- The facts expressed herein are subject to change without notice ... UUCP: {humming,linus,harvard,security}!lewis@axiom.UUCP