Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caesar.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!ucsd!hub!6600pete From: 6600pete@hub.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: The Mac of the 90's.... Message-ID: <3319@hub.UUCP> Date: 15 Dec 89 01:59:40 GMT References: <10088@zodiac.ADS.COM> Sender: news@hub.UUCP Lines: 149 From article <10088@zodiac.ADS.COM>, by jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson): > In article <37167@apple.Apple.COM> rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes: >>Simplify calls to the toolbox. Okay, programming the toolbox box >>has never been a cake walk, and this is a legitimate concern. However, >>I don't think any parameters are "mystery"; all have a purpose. > > Let me put it this way... Instead of passing 5 parameters into a toolbox > call, define 5 different entry points to the function (5 different > toolbox calls) to accomplish the same thing. Nope. Can't do that. Most of the toolbox calls need all their parameters. Examples might help. (GetDItem is one I can think of, but that's the only one so far...) If you're really stuck for simplicity, write your own wrappers and put them in a unit (module). 'T'ain't that tough. > This might make the code more > modular and more than likely easier to read. Macintosh code, in my experience, requires fewer comments, because what's going on is so obvious. > If you've ever programmed in VAX assembly language you know what I mean. Aha! Here we have the problem. The Mac isn't a mainframe! > Also I'd like to see some kind of .h file that defined symbols for use > with these functions. So instead of saying ToolBoxCall(-1, "\p", 0L, myFunc), > I would say ToolBoxCall(ALL_LISTS, NO_TITLE, NO_FILTER, &myFunc). > ...it would make dealing with the toolbox somewhat easier and make the code > more readable. Perhaps you should turn "require prototypes" on, so you don't have to read for bad parameter types. That's the only reading issue I can think of that affects parameter multiplicity. > Quickdraw is always subject to change, and therefore may >>obsolete a hardware based solution. > This sounds like a reasonable argument, however you will note that the > Amiga and Atari machines make good use of blitter hardware. But do they do regions like the Mac? > I'm sure that blitters would be useful even when redrawing complex regions. He just told you why this isn't a feasible solution. Why are you still "sure"? > Also I note that changes in Quickdraw haven't obsoleted generations of > laserprinters lately, so the situation should be even better for blitters. Ah, but how could you justify the speed sacrifice in translating QuickDraw to BlitterLanguage(tm)? QD -> PostScript is fine when you're getting hardcopy, but it certainly isn't when you're drawing. >>If you doubt that Apple can make changes in >>the interface for the better, ask your local Apple rep to show you >>the video tape and literature about our OASIS concept. Or the Knowledge >>Navigator video.... > But when will things like this be officially shipped with the system or > supported by Apple? Go get the video before you ask this again. After that, think about what I've said about consistency in the UI. > [ ... unrelated text ] > Don't entice me with visions of the far future and then fail to deliver > small enhanceents tomorrow. What? What is this supposed to mean? Applied to a NeXT enthusiast, this is pretty ironic: HOW long was the release version of the OS vaporware? Sounds like a support deficiency to me... >>And if memory serves me correct, the NeXt machine doesn't even support >>X-Windows. Hmmmm..... > It will early NeXT year. I hear an initial distribution will be available > in Janurary. Pretty quick response since the machine was first released! Perhaps release dates have more to do with marketing than "superiority" of a computer firm or its support. I wouldn't think A/UX customers, with the full array of Mac windowing available to them, would clamor as loudly for X as would NeXT customers, who probably see the possibility of disaster with the possibility of an orphan windowing system. (To be fair, note the two uses of "possibility" -- they're deliberate.) > If I want Posix compliency I'll switch over to Sun Microsystems or even > NeXT, not A/UX! Why do that when you already own Mac hardware? > The Lisa programming interface was object oriented? I may be wrong but I > don't think the Lisa implemented ANYTHING resembling this paradigm. You're wrong. > Even if it did, it didn't carry over to the Mac. What do you think Object Pascal is? Chopped liver? > I also wrote to your C++ evangelist about obtaining an advanced copy of > C++ for evaluation by my company and I received nothing in return. You're right, you're the little guy. You didn't get advance copies of the software because big mean Apple had no idea who you were. In sympathy, I'll break my non-disclosure agreement and send you some beta software I'm testing. Where should I mail it? If you're interested in bitching about support, I'll join you, as I have said elsewhere. But this is not a defense of the position that the Mac does not have enough object orientation in its developement environments. It does. > C++ from Apple is really an implementation of Cfront from AT&T. So? That makes it inferior? It exists. >>First, Inside Mac is being revamped... > HALLELUJAH! Me too. > I just hope that you guys can achieve more than "just fonts in different > sizes." Alas, the Layout Manager isn't going to be in System 7.0. It's there, though. > But it would make sense to be compatible with OTHER people's laserwriters, > computers, displays, printers, ad nauseum. Nope. That's not Apple's market strategy, Candide. > I clearly stated that these were DESIRES for the future Mac > OS. Not complaints. Not Flames. As such they may be off base or > even short-sighted... Here's that attempt to say "It's just my opinion" again... > If the current state of affairs represents Apple's idea of the highest > pinnacle of achievment... I think it's pretty clear that in the world today the Mac IS the highest pinnacle of achievement. In no other market is there such a duplicity of software for such a wonderful and consistent user interface. However, I assure you Apple is not sitting around letting the market over-take it. In that sense, you ain't seen nothin' yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills