Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Standard interface to windows? Message-ID: <58XB.4KX.ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> Date: 28 Dec 89 15:50:52 GMT References: <8912280627.AA03786@jade.berkeley.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 47 In article <8912280627.AA03786@jade.berkeley.edu> Forth Interest Group International List writes: > In *principle* this is true, but in practice it is not even close to true. That depends on what sort of subset you want to stick with. At the bottom, a simple single terminal-emulator window is easy. The next stage up is multiple terminal-emulator windows. Then you can add menus... they can be implemented by just providing a list of labels and some sort of token to come in on the emulator windows. Then you can add tektronix-style graphics. Then how about gadgets or buttons? I really do think you can go a long way with this model without making anything that'll break on a Mac or under Gem or Microsoft Windows or X or Intuition. > You can learn all you need to know about Unix files by reading about 5 > pages of documentation. Ditto for DOS files or CP/M files or whatever. Well, the Macintosh file system, with its resource forks, are much more complex. And how about VMS or IBM's VM? Then there's the sorts of things that Univac put in OS/8, where a single file name canb represent up to 4 seperate files, depending on how they're opened. FORTH block files are a simplifying assumption in this mess. What sort of simplifying assumptions do you need for windows? > The imaging models for various window systems are > drastically different (pixel-based vs. spline/stencil/ink, automatic > clipping vs. programmer-controlled clipping, different font models, > gadget interaction managed by the programmer vs. by the OS, automatic > vs. non-automatic mouse cursor clipping, etc). Much of that can be hidden by the interface, just as Forth block files hide the differences between CP/M, UNIX, OS/9, DOS, etcetera. You don't WANT to know what files look like on some of the systems I've used. > It would be possible to build an abstract interface that would fit on top > of any system, but that abstract interface would probably be so big, > baroque, and slow that nobody would use it. Perhaps. I suspect not. People still run Nethack in Xterm windows, Amiga console windows, and so on... Start with the easy stuff. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com