Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!zen!zooey.Berkeley.EDU!c160-aw
From: c160-aw@zooey.Berkeley.EDU (Christian Wiedmann)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Easy of programming, Mac, Amiga
Message-ID: <198@zen.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 16-Sep-86 19:26:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: zen.198
Posted: Tue Sep 16 19:26:54 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Sep-86 06:19:21 EDT
References: <8609152222.AA23166@cory.Berkeley.EDU> <193@zen.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@zen.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: c160-aw@zooey.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Christian Wiedmann)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 20

In article <193@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> c160-aw@zooey.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Christian Wiedmann) writes:
>My opinion in this already belabored subject is that the key issue is not
>the interface to the programmer, but the interface to the user. Both the
>Amiga and the Mac support a mouse and windowing. What the Amiga lacks is
>a clearly defined User Interface. 

What I really wanted to say is that IN MY OPINION, the Amiga lacks a clearly
defined user interface. I also have to admit that I've hardly used the Amiga.
Therefore my views are suspect, and I admit it, biased.

From what I've heard about programming the Amiga, I would say that either
argument is nitpicking. On the whole, programming both machines is roughly
the same complexity. Nevertheless, I don't see why both machines couldn't
use the skeleton program idea.  This would get rid of the problems for both
machines.

	    -Christian Wiedmann

Disclaimer: The above view is totally unsubstantiated and therefore is worthy
of eternal bewonderment.