Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site boring.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!boring!guido
From: guido@boring.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Request for mac sources
Message-ID: <6626@boring.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 12:42:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: boring.6626
Posted: Thu Sep 19 12:42:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 13:30:32 EDT
References: <251@h.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>
Reply-To: guido@mcvax.UUCP (Guido van Rossum)
Organization: "Stamp Out BASIC" Committee, CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 32
Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax.LOCAL

In article <251@h.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> Rick Busdiecker writes:
>As soon as (if?) the cc68 cross-compiler can produce code for the Amiga, it
>should be very easy to move many of the programs that were developed for the
>Mac over to the Amiga.
>
>This is yet another good reason for writing good device-dependant c-code when
>developing for a micro.

Ha, ha, ha!  device-dependent C for the Macintosh!  Obviously you have not
seen many of the C sources that were posted to net.sources.mac (admittedly,
there weren't that many, but enoug to give one the taste).  C code for the
Macintosh consists of about 5 % algorithms and 95 % toolbox interface, unless
you're writing HUGE applications.  The typical demo program for instance
has four or five lines to draw a specific curve and the rest of the program
sets up windows, checks the keyboard and the mouse, and what-have-you.

Given the complexity of the toolbox interface, it is unlikely that individuals
who are writing one particular program would spend much time on separating
the toolbox from the rest; I believe that currently MANY programs are
actually study objects for their authors: they learned using the toolbox
while they were writing it (and some even learned C at the same time :-).

I have seen one demo for the ST and it was not different; I expect the Amiga
to obey to the same rule.  It is not that strange: libraries with the power
of any of these machines' toolboxes are a new development in the microcomputer
world and new developments are unlikely to start their life as regulated,
standardized interfaces.  Something like GKS on top of it would kill the
system's performance and memory space; besides I doubt if GKS provides
an adequate interface to a windowing system.

-- 
	Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam (guido@mcvax.UUCP)