Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!unisoft!gethen!bdt!david From: david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Standardization Message-ID: <187@bdt.UUCP> Date: 19 Mar 88 23:14:47 GMT References: <8803172142.AA00829@TIS.COM> Reply-To: david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) Organization: Beckemeyer Development Tools, Oakland, CA Lines: 60 In article <8803172142.AA00829@TIS.COM> dmb@TIS.COM (David M. Baggett) writes: > Personally I think that the lack of standardization is the one thing that >has kept the ST from being major competition with the Mac. Atari is very >much at fault for this ("ha, I told you so" really doesn't cut it), expecially >considering that they were really pushing this thing as a "more serious" or >"business" machine. But this isn't just more complaining about the state of >atari's management, etc. etc. [ some deleted ] > This may sound like whining, but think about this: It is currently >impossible to write a "Juggler" program that works on all ST software (by >"Juggler" I mean a program that allows you to have more than one program >in memory and to switch between them). In fact, it's impossible to write >one that works on much software at all (Michtron's attempt only works with >straight GEM applications -- forget NeoChrome, Spetrum 512, and all those >other programs with hardware hacks (like HBL's etc.)) > This is because there is no standard way of doing anything. No one told >developers that they shouldn't use HBL's. No one said not to mess with the >mouse handler. Everyone did these things (and who can blame them), but by >doing so any hope of upward compatibilty and portability was tossed out the >window. [ more deleted .. but you get the point ] I agree wholeheartedly. I find it even more amazing that it was Atari policy (offical or otherwise, I don't know) to actually PREVENT information from being released to developers. I and several other developers have attempted to gain information regarding standards, and have even proposed standards to Atari. No response, Yes, No, or otherwise. I can remember official developer support personnel stating things like: "Well we don't plan on making standards for that. If you have a good way to do it, do it that way, and maybe propose it to us." Well I did that, but it didn't do me any good. Nothing ever became an offical "standard". I don't even know, has Atari ever anounced an offical way to do anything? (This doesn't include Alan Pratt, who has given excellent advice here.) With respect to Multitasking, it's even worse that the problems one finds using ST applications with a simple switcher. The GEM standards are at least minimally documented, and the damned applications don't even adhere to them (all those programs that wipe out the Desk Acc. windows etc. are examples). Where there is even less documentation, things are far worse. Not only do we need standards, but we need "recommended" work-arounds that have some likelyhood of working with future enhacements, such as multitasking (which is here now). I think the effort that Mark Williams Co. and myself (BDT) have put in is the only way it will happen. Atari will NWEVER do it. The developers now know more about the ST then Atari could ever tell us (many long sessions with a 68000 ICE and single stepping through the ROMS!). We don't really need them to make a good system out of the ST. We need to form some sort of a developer association with developers agreeing to support each other and working together to provide mutual compatibility. It worked for MWC and BDT, I think it can work on a larger scale. -- David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | the other feller means an' then pay UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | no attention to what he says"