Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:14465 comp.windows.misc:399
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: A/UX window systems, Mac tool...( Hum Interface)
Message-ID: <1763@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 26 Mar 88 12:56:07 GMT
References: <1174@cpocd2.UUCP> <6986@drutx.ATT.COM>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 36

In article <6986@drutx.ATT.COM>, clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) writes:
> Howard.

> In any Mac program, GetNextEvent () _is_always_called at the appropriate
> interval.  Since the beginning of Mac history, and presumably forevermore.

> In your own words, "NO SPECIAL CODING IS NEEDED.  Most programs multitask 
> AUTOMATICALLY without any...".

Clive.

What you mean to say is "NO EXTRA SPECIAL CODING IS NEEDED, because most
programs have been twisted to fit the Apple GetNextEvent loop, whether or
not it's appropriate for the application". Why should such inherently batch
programs as compilers or ray tracers have to stop work periodically (and
pretty frequently) to check on the user?

In real operating systems, Batch programs get along well with Event Loop
programs and Multi Threaded programs and whatever other sort of programs
you like.

> The sole exceptions are non-user programs which take over the machine, such as
> memory testers or other diagnostic tools.  Same for any Unix box.

What, you mean to say that 'cc' and 'as' check for mouse activity? I'd
be real surprised to find that... I didn't think they had mice on the PDP-11.

> The people who designed this did their homework ever so much more
> carefully than many who criticize them have guessed.

Given the braindamaged "operating system" they had to start with, I'd say they
did an excellent job. Not as good as Microsoft did getting the poor old 8088
to challenge Apple's hotshot 68020 :->, but better than most.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.