Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!linus!alliant!rosenkra
From: rosenkra@Alliant.COM (Bill Rosenkranz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Standardization
Message-ID: <1370@alliant.Alliant.COM>
Date: 9 Mar 88 09:00:05 GMT
References: <880307110110123.AHJN@Mars.UCC.UMass.EDU>
Reply-To: rosenkra@alliant.UUCP (Bill Rosenkranz)
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA
Lines: 43

In article <880307110110123.AHJN@Mars.UCC.UMass.EDU> Sleeple@UMass.BITNET writes:
>Well I am new to the Atari world....so pardon me if I am greatly out
>of line.  We have all been waiting anxiously waiting for the ROM upgrades
>from Atari.  Why don't we, as responsible programmers, take this great
>moment and standardize!  Yes...silly as it may seem, now is probably the
>best time to do it.  With the new ROMs, may programs will have to be
>reworked anyway, so why not standard certain things while we are at it.
	[examples deleted...]
>           .....think of the power this would give the average
>user...
>Perhaps standardization of programming techniques, ie...rules, that
>programmer should stick to in order to keep compatability within different
>programs......
>I know...I'm just asking for too much....so flame me if you really want..


to a great extent, or at least a large extent, the manufacturer and OS
designer really should define the standard. Ok, now that im awake and realize
who am im talking about (atari corp./DRI) this is obviously asking far too
much. 

first of all, atari has virtually no control over the OS: i don't even
think they have source to much of GEM/TOS/GEMDOS/... it's difficult even
to know the proper NAME of the OS and it's parts, let alone specific
details. atari was not remiss in leaving a fair amount of discression
up to developers and warned continously about using "non standard" or
reserved things (sys variables, etc.). this puts the onus on developers
to make sure versions of the OS do not effect their program's behavior.
this is fine for most programs that do little or no "outside" things
but not the case for programs relying on quasi-documented "features".
what atari could do is realize that certain programming really helps
refine their machine and try to accomodate the developers. they are,
however, really not set up to do that and instead choose to respond with
"ha, i told you so!". 

you are naive to think that programmers will magically band together
and standardize the way things are done, especially those of us in it
for the $$$. 

i really don't know how further standardization will give you any more
power. for all its problems , GEM ain't too bad.

-bill