Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!uwvax!puff!cat28!blochowi
From: blochowi@cat28.CS.WISC.EDU (Jason Blochowiak)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: resource forks
Message-ID: <2820@puff.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 23 May 89 03:05:03 GMT
References: <8905211958.AA07187@crash.cts.com>
Sender: news@puff.cs.wisc.edu
Reply-To: blochowi@cat28.CS.WISC.EDU (Jason Blochowiak)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 33

In article <8905211958.AA07187@crash.cts.com> pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-europa!samt@nosc.mil writes:
>Doug Gwin writes: [Isn't it Gwyn?]
> | It certainly is!  I've heard all the arguments for forked files before,
> | and I still don't like them.  I think it's the biggest OS design botch
> | since files types.
> Gee Doug, don't you really mean since ProDOS came out and wasn't DOS 4.0?
	I doubt it.
> I can't wait to hear you wail and nash your teeth over HFS.FST when (if ever)
>it comes out. 
	Dunno when, but I bet it will.
>Progress seems to be hard on some.
	Please - there's a difference between progress and progress at the
cost of incompatibility.
>Sam
	Having seen him post on a number of things, I don't think he's being
a sentimentalist - I think he's critizing a design choice. There are a number
of different broad philosophies as far as OS design goes, and Apple seems to
have gone off on their own (pardon the pun) road.
	I can see both sides of the issue - on one hand, a resource fork 
doesn't do anything that can't be done by some other means (like a separate
file, perhaps with a similar name to the application), but (on the other hand)
it does insure that the resources will be there (yaknow, if the file is there,
the resources are as well). That last bit is fairly important given the way
that they designed the Mac's OS. I'm personally ambivilent about them - I am
VERY happy that the gs will finally have resources (not at all unsure about
that one), but I agree to a point with Doug about the particular way that
Apple chose to implement them...
	Btw, I'm not a sentimentalist either - I much prefer ProDOS to DOS 3.3,
and I prefer GS/OS to ProDOS 16.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		Jason Blochowiak (blochowi@garfield.cs.wisc.edu)
			"Not your average iconoclast..."
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------