Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!rutgers!rochester!udel!mmdf
From: wzg91@ttacs1.ttu.edu (BROWN, KEVIN)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Grrrr....BCPL.....
Message-ID: <14562@louie.udel.EDU>
Date: 3 May 89 12:49:57 GMT
Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU
Lines: 70

[ Line eater?  WHAT line eater?  I don't see any li

Warning....the spirit of this message is, effectively, a flame, though in 
this case it is not directed at any particular person, but rather at CBM.  
So skip to the next message if you don't want to hear this...:-)

Otherwise, read on!
(Torpedoes armed and locked on target, Captain! :-)


To those responsible for OS development on the Amiga:

The Amiga is a very nice machine.  The hardware performs quite well, and 
the larger portion of the OS (specifically, Exec and Intuition) also 
performs at least reasonably well, and is relatively easy to deal with from 
a programmer's standpoint.  Exec, especially, was well thought out, 
providing fast task-switching and message passing facilities.

AmigaDOS, however, is a kludge.  Perhaps I should be more specific. 
Calling AmigaDOS a kludge is a COMPLEMENT!  It's slow (with the exception
of FFS), cumbersome (being written in a language that should have been
outdated years ago), and limiting (because it requires a different
environment from that provided by and/or required by the rest of the
operating system). 

Why, why, WHY did you guys have to write AmigaDOS in BCPL?!?!?!?!???  Even
FORTRAN would have been a better solution!!!  IT at least CAN handle global
and local variables in a way compatible with the rest of the OS!! But
NOOOOO, you guys HAD to pick a language that BY THE DEFINITION OF THE
LANGUAGE uses a DIFFERENT calling convention, a DIFFERENT stack convention,
a DIFFERENT local/global variable convention.  Of ALL the languages you had
to choose from, you HAD to pick the language that represents the MOST
incompatibility with the rest of the OS!!!!  Ye gods, you may as well have
written the d*mn thing in BASIC!!!! 

And WHO was responsible for APPROVING such a STUPID move???  ANYONE who
knows ANYTHING about operating systems knows that you DON'T MIX LANGUAGES
when writing operating systems, EXCEPT when those languages are COMPLETELY
COMPATIBLE in the way they handle their environmental requirements!!!
Clearly, assembly language is compatible with everything. 

Yes, I realize that AmigaDOS is based on the TriPOS operating system.  
Didn't any of you do any RESEARCH into TriPOS to determine any 
compatibility problems that might arise BEFORE using it as a model for 
AmigaDOS????????

The Amiga is the ONLY machine that I'm aware of that can't handle DOS calls 
from anywhere.  C'mon, guys, even MSDOS machines allow THAT!!!

And if all that isn't bad enough, you've had THREE YEARS to FIX IT!!!  But 
here we are, three years later, with the SAME limitations!!!

So why am I writing this?  I'd like an explanation for all this.  I feel 
the Amiga community deserves to know why it's forced to deal with a mutant 
disk operating system, and why it's been forced to deal with it for so 
long.  Of course, programmers by now are probably used to the limitations 
imposed by the disk operating system, and that's a shame because they 
deserver better than this.

I feel the Amiga is an excellent machine.  It doesn't deserve to be dragged 
down by a lousy disk operating system...

				Kevin Brown

Internet: wzg91@ttacs1.ttu.edu or	Bitnet:	  WZG91@TTACS1 or
	  c8u00@ttacs1.ttu.edu			  C8U00@TTACS1

Snailnet: 404 Gaston Hall		Voicenet: (806)742-4375
	  Texas Tech University
	  Lubbock, TX  79406