Portability and the Ivory Tower (was Re: Book on Microsoft C)

[Peter da Silva]

In article <42674c5e.b11a at falcon.engin.umich.edu>, ejd at caen.engin.umich.edu (Edward J Driscoll) writes:
> In article <3653 at ficc.uu.net> peter at ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >Machine independent code does not imply teletype compatibility. There have
> >been a range of machine-independent screen- and graphic- oriented
> >environments (in order of increasing sophistication):

> >	Termcap.
> >	Curses.
> >	X-Windows.
> >	NeWS.

> Ya.  How many of those run on a Mac

All of them under A/UX.

> and compete with the built-in
> Mac routines for speed?

Depends. The built-in Mac routines do a fine job of handling graphics, but
they're at the mercy of an abysmal "operating system". Try running a few
programs under Multifinder and compare them to X or News under UNIX.

> How much of your system's resources do
> they consume?

Not as much as you'd like to think. Unlike PC-ware, UNIX programs don't sit
there busy-waiting on GetNextEvent.

> Ooooh, thanks.  I was hoping I would eventually get a snippy little reply.
> I was afraid this would go on for some time being a peaceful, intelligent
> discussion.

That's up to you, mate. The only system I've used where backwards compatibility
has not hurt it is UNIX. Something to do with portable design.

Dismissing years of work with the phrase 'teletype compatibility' is really
going to keep this discussion on an even keel.

> Backwards compatibility does not imply crippling future
> applications.  That your 80286 can run 8086 software does not seem
> to have crippled it from running system III Unix.

Sure has. We can't run any number of programs that come out on the net
thanks to the 64K segment limit.

> Yet, you are willing
> to cripple current applications in the name of portability.

I don't think a program is crippled if it takes a second to repaint
a full screen. But then I'm used to the real world... I used to use
vi on a 110 baud terminal.

> You're right, 'vi' is an excellent example.  I tried to teach a
> Mac programmer (with an MS from MIT) how to use it, and he
> thought it laughably brutal compared to even the most simple
> Mac editor.

Show me a mac editor that will let me do

:1,$s'for *\(.*\) *:= *\(.*\) *to *\(.*\) *do'for(\1 = \2; \1 <= \3; \1++)'

and I'll accept that's a fair comparison. 'Vi' is more powerful in the
text manipulation domain than any wysiwyg editor I've ever seen. If you
really want to freak out your Mac friends, introduce them to Emacs. It's
even more powerful, and even more confusing.

> Do you really prefer h,j,k, and l to using a mouse?

Yes. I use 'vi' on my Amiga.

Actually, 'jkl;' would be even better, since they're the right-hand home
keys.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter at ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter at sugar.hackercorp.com.