Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.programmer:5593 comp.sys.mac:30034
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!hc!lll-winken!uunet!brunix!omh
From: omh@brunix (Owen M. Hartnett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: DTS and Compatibility (Was: MF)
Message-ID: <3918@brunix.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 89 23:11:47 GMT
References: <1562@neoucom.UUCP> <28399@apple.Apple.COM> <3637@brunix.UUCP> <1304@internal.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@brunix.UUCP
Reply-To: omh@zaphod.UUCP (Owen M. Hartnett)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Lines: 50

In article <1304@internal.Apple.COM> shebanow@apple.com (Andrew Shebanow) writes:
>In article <3637@brunix.UUCP> omh@brunix (Owen M. Hartnett) writes:
>
[My comments that DTS should publish "dangerous information."]

>Unfortunately, it isn't just the developer's problem. If a developer 
>writes and sells a buggy application, and that application breaks when a 
>future version of the system software gets released, it hurts all of the 
>programs users, who are Apple customers, and it hurts Apple as well, since 
>many of those customers will blame Apple and not the developer (I am 
>speaking from past experience here).
>
>DTS is in a position to influence this problem, by informing developers of 
>the consequences when they want to do something dangerous, and by 
>withholding information when that information would be abused if it was 
>publicly documented. This policy is not written in stone: this whole 
>discussion was brought about by a survey question from a DTS engineer. If 
>someone can convince us that there are COMPELLING reasons to publish this 
>information, we will do so, either privately or publicly. So far though, I 
>haven't seen any reasons posted that justify the compatibility dangers.
>
>If this constitutes "arrogance" on our part, then I apologize for all of 
>us. However, we feel that it is our duty (wow, pretty heavy there dude) to 
>try and keep developers on the straight and narrow path to compatibility.

I think there's a greater danger in keeping quiet.  Look, who's is Apple
afraid of most that will mis-use the guidelines?  Obviously, the big
software vendors who are precisely the people who ignore them the most.

(Look at all the kludges that not only Apple, but other vendors too had
to put in their code to handle Excel's flakiness.)

Maybe I'm wrong, but if you put up a standard, particularly on an issue
as clear cut as this: (0=computer running finder, 1=computer running
multi-finder, 2=computer running a/ux, 3 = computer running ???), you
will nip a lot of compatibility problems in the bud.

Basically what I'm saying is that people will do it anyway, so why not
legalize it?  

If you look through Inside Mac, it's rife with areas where
the same problems exist.  Even the newest technote (which has become
a joke quoted at almost every user group meeting I've been to lately)
admonishes us against using *documented* information.

So what's a developer to do?
Owen Hartnett
Brown University Computer Science

omh@cs.brown.edu.CSNET