#Those DevCon Techies!
13 messages in this thread
I don't find it comforting that you think 'afinkel' (Andy Finkel, to those
of you who aren't "in the know") will throw away any comments he'd receive.
What about 1.5 or 2.0? It's obvious 1.4 is frozen. However, if you'd like
to explain why minds open and close, I'm all ears.
I think an Amiga 900 number could be popular. Anybody who's willing to
shell out $10 an hour for network newsbits would be willing to spend $6 to
hear the day's Amiga news, wouldn't they?
That's what I like about you, John; you'll argue with anything. At least
we've got one thing in common C-:.
Of course I meant "the last Ameri-Devcon", the San Francisco '89 Devcon,
referring to "the next devcon". I was replying to your message about how
at one devcon everyone screamed for AREXX, and nobody peeped for
retargetable graphics. And at the "next" devcon, everyone screamed for
retargetable graphics.
I don't reject the Mac interface at all; I use Mac's frequently for DTP,
and greatly respect the consistency Apple has managed to coerce across
applications. I was referring to Bayless's speech itself, which basicly
said Amiga developers should all be conforming to that, too … just like
Bayless himself does. Bayless didn't address how this should be done, at
least I sure didn't catch anything besides yet-another My-Way-Is-Right,
Your-Way-Is-Wrong impression. Contrast with the AREXX hoopla, which was
more like Our-Way-Is-Right, Why-Don't-You-Join-Us-Before-There-Are
-Other-Ways. Nobody else was doing IPC back then. Oops, did I say nobody?
I guess you were, John, but without a Grande View to establish conventions
that would be used across applications. Sour grapes?
Back to interfaces, the easiest way to get developers to create stuff with
good, consistent user interfaces is to provide easy to use OS functions to
do it. Without that, especially in a world with the fierce independence of
Amiga hackers, you can write proposals until Microsoft releases WORD for
the Amiga, and all you'll get is dirty looks. Have you played with your
we-can't-talk-about-it beta? I can't say I agree with everything Commodore
has done, but things are happening. If anyone has C='s ears pinned back
listening to exactly how things should be done, I sure don't know about it.
It's a big company.
On the 900 number, I bet you'll be the first one to complain if C= does it.
There'll certainly be something wrong with it, whatever they do.
C(tongue half-in-cheek)heath
You're right, it's in my nature to argue and debate. So you've avoided my
primary questions – an admirable debating technique, when used wisely. Do
you have any evidence that CBM has non-techie advisers on additions to the
OS? Perhaps you don't think they should, but I do. Second, if someone can
look at the Mac and appreciate its good points, why don't they consider
adding those features to the Amiga, or for heaven's sakes, use their brains
to make it better, instead of trashing it at every turn? What do you think
of the esthetics of the Mac? Do you think their file requester was a
collaboration between an artist and a user interface expert, who sent a
spec to a programmer, or did one programmer do it all?
Of course, InterChange has been using IPC all along. SoundScape used it
first, for what it's worth. You're right, it never occurred to me thXSY(C
per se was a market. (Sometimes I wonder if there was a market for
InterChange. I'm sure you've wondered if there's a "market" for TxEd,
too.) Is there some Grande View that links applications? Let's see, to
link product X and Y, I need general programming skills, then learn ARexx,
then the (unique) ARexx commands for product X and Y. Bless ARexx's heart,
but writing M x N Arexx macros could be difficult for a user. InterChange,
meanwhile, remains point-and-click for M x N formats.
I can't comment on where Commodore's user interface decisions are being
made, being both too close and too far away from the situation as an
off-site consultant working on the user-interface. But I can assure you
the decisions about the file requester are not being made by "one
programmer who did it all".
Do you really still not believe AREXX, and a uniform IPC interface for
applications, is not a good idea? There can't be less than 50 different
applications which speak AREXX at this point. Sure, most end users can't
create their own macros. Has HyperCard had a problem because most users
can't create stacks? There are a lot more than 50*50 users out there, with
users groups, BBS's, and PD disks to get macros developed and distributed.
Not to mention the vendors themselves, who have vested interests in getting
collections of useful macros. Then add on professional and academic
markets, such as at SLAC, where there are dozens of Amiga's. A couple of
system administrators can create the macros for hundreds of users. If the
Amiga is to make a mark as a serious business computer, it is likely AREXX
and interconnectivity will play a part.
Even ProWrite V3.0 has an AREXX port. What more needs to be said?
ProWrite 3.0 has ARexx? I'm starting to feel very fond of this product
(after the way some people have been talking, I get the impression that
James Bayless got picked upon at DevCon).
I wonder if New Horizons will get their outline processor to open on a
Workbench window so I can use it on my Moniterm. <sigh>
I may have to upgrade, now. I think I've got pre 2.0 (earlier than whatever
they're latest release is, 2.0 or 2.5??), but it was giving me fits trying
to get it to work with my printer via 1.3, so I dropped it. I can do most
of what I want with CED now, anyway. But, if 3.0 has an Arexx port…. 🙂
–Eet–
Yea, plus undo/redo. Beginning to sound like another programmers editor.
Maybe James's been hanging out with the techies too long C-:.
I wish they'd make it handle something the size of a book… then I'd buy
it in a second.
Till then, I can't even use the thing.
Ben
Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
I wonder if the reason ProWrite cannot handle something the size of a book
is that it loads the whole document into memory, rather than thrashing the
disk the way my beloved Edit does.
I was asked the other night _why_ we need Arexx, since the message ports
etck so well. I didn't have a good answer (tho I do like Arexx quite a
bit). However, as for the file requester, I'll be happy with any CBM
decides on, so long as I can replace it with another, or use one of my own.
If we'll be required to use the cbm supplied file requester, I would much
rather be 'stuck' with Khalid Aldoseri's than ARP's. <crossing fingers>
–Eet–
In Paris, CBM introduced someone who's supposedly working on user interface
concerns, and I was glad to hear it. So what's going to be the difference
between Apple's and CBM's approach to user interface guidelines? So Apple
coercion is bad, but Amiga library functions are just "suggestions"? As
far as I know, Apple doesn't yank your developer application if you don't
adhere to the Human Interface Guidelines. It's the market that "coerces"
the uniformity in Mac programs, because Mac users have seen the wisdom
behind Apple's choices.
Even as one of those fierce independents, I'm yet to be convinced that the
anarchy of Amiga interfaces has lead to any great advances in user
interface design. Can you think of an Amiga application that's as pretty,
as professional as any Mac program? (ProWrite doesn't count. 🙂
I had imagined the 900 number as a private venture, not Commodore's. Turns
out 900 numbers can cost a lot, if you don't get a large volume of calls.
Where did you read between my lines to get those gems, John? Where did I
say "Apple coercion is bad"? I think Apple's done a fine job establishing
guidelines and creating marketplace expectations about the user interface.
What I said was that the monologue by Bayless wasn't the answer for the
Amiga. I don't think Apple themselves would have attempted to mimic Apple,
if they were trying to establish a uniform user interface for the Amiga
starting in 1988.
I sure would. I'm sure other would, too.
Dial 900 number, that are.
:^)