Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!husc6!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ From: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Standardization Message-ID: <8XLHINy00VsfM0Z1FF@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: 20 Oct 88 00:36:41 GMT References: <1304@nmtsun.nmt.edu> , <4166@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Organization: Carnegie Mellon Lines: 28 In-Reply-To: <4166@boulder.Colorado.EDU> > *Excerpts from ext.nn.comp.sys.amiga: 19-Oct-88 Re: Standardization Chris* > *Chimelis@boulder.C (966)* > I disagree. I think that even if we propose a "soft standard" or a verbal > standard, that it > would severly limit software authors. Sure, it may reduce software size, > costs, etc, but it > will stifle the creativity of authors and prevent such great file requesters > as those available > with Access! and several other programs. Plus, if you do give in to > "standardisation", you will > also be proving that Apple structure is superior to Amiga flexibility. I used to think that way, but I am getting tired of seeing programs with half-functional user interfaces because the author is too lazy (or too brain-damaged) to do things right, and as a programmer I would rather have "canned" file requestors, menus, and cut/paste operation in a shareable library somewhere where I wouldn't have to do the work to create the stuff and I wouldn't have to link in a copy of it with every program I write. Perhaps Apple's structure is superior to Amiga's flexibility. The X Window System is even more flexible than the Amiga, and personally I think it sucks the big one as far as user interfaces go. --M Michael Portuesi / Information Technology Center / Carnegie Mellon University ARPA/UUCP: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: rainwalker@drycas "my friends say she's a dumb blonde, but they don't know she dyes her hair"