Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!sas!walker
From: walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.mac,net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: BYTE issue of September 86 focuses on the 68000
Message-ID: <173@sas.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Sep-86 09:32:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: sas.173
Posted: Wed Sep 17 09:32:35 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Sep-86 02:19:31 EDT
References: <3868@ut-ngp.UUCP> <3374@ism780c.UUCP> <15656@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <158@zen.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC
Lines: 18
Summary: User Interface
Xref: mnetor net.micro.68k:1239 net.micro.mac:7096 net.micro.amiga:4734

In article <158@zen.BERKELEY.EDU>, c160-aw@zooey.Berkeley.EDU (Christian Wiedmann) writes:
> The whole point of the Mac is its User Interface. The strategy is to make
> all the hardships of using a computer disappear. Naturally, this also forces
> the programmer to do a lot more. 

Yes, but that is NOT the point here.  The User Interfaces are basically the same
here - window oriented, mouse driven, etc. How does it make the user interface 
better to force the programmer to work harder?  The example cited in the 
article shows a series of about 8 or 9 steps required on the Mac to resize a 
window.  On the Amiga, it was one step - the system did all the resizing, and 
just informed you about it.  The Amiga method is much better than the Mac 
method on two counts - 1. it is less work for the programmer, and 2. it 
encourages a more consistent user interface, since most people will use the 
system-supplied way rather than go to all the trouble of doing it like the Mac.

I agree that it is better to force the programmer to do all that than to be lazy
and use a DOS-type interface, but I think that if it can be done the easy way
rather than forcing programmers to do that much, so much the better.