home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Atari Mega Archive 1
/
Atari Mega Archive - Volume 1.iso
/
lists
/
gem
/
l_1199
/
989
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1994-08-27
|
6KB
From: mforget@elfhaven.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Michel Forget)
Subject: Re: Gem List (Please Post!) (fwd)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 23:48:12 -0600
Precedence: bulk
Hello Ken,
>Look at it, and you'll find you will never look at AES 4.x quite the same
>way again. :-)
I will, and you are probably right about it.
>> Okay, Ken. _Send_ me a copy, if you are willing, and I will look at it
>> and summarize the experience to the list.
Ken did send me a copy of the demonstration, and I will post a message
about the experience later today.
>Actually, we *did* upload to the conference, but Yat declined to post it on
>the basis that 'not everyone can use uudecode/unzip'. Shallow excuse
>especially when other binaries have been posted to this conference in
>exactly the same method.
Interesting... You should not post anything larger than 16K to this
list anyway, though, since MausNet will bounce it back to the entire
list.
>I'm amazed at how much your attitude towards me has changed over the last
>year. Since we've not talked to each other since I sent you the last version
>of WinLIB PRO, you've all-of-the-sudden got sour towards me. Although I
>don't take this personally, this is rather interesting when it comes toward
>a person who was highly praising my library on ForemNET a year ago... If
>you keep talking down about it, why would you even WANT a copy of the
>library? I'll go ahead and send it to you anyway.
This should probably be in private mail, but I'll keep it short. Perhaps
my attitude has soured over the last year, but I doubt it. The fact that
I am not 100% encouraging toward your library should only be taken as that.
If you did something I agreed with, I'd be very encouraging...
>XAES (the reworked version of WinLIB PRO) is 238,592 bytes. Remember
>of course that only the parts of the library that you use get linked into
>your executable.
This is 500% larger than EGEM (roughly). Your library offers features
that EGEM does not, I know, so I will not say that the size is an
evil thing. You also mentioned that only the things you need get
linked in. That is to the good, and would make me consider your
library thoughtfully before making a decision.
>Tell me, where can I get SGEM, or ForceGEM? What FTP sites, since I've never
>heard of or seen these libraries.
ftp.cs.tu-berlin.de /pub/atari/[Pp]rogamming (not positive about directory)
EGEM, ForceGEM, SGEM, and others are all there.
>Notice the *key word* here. >>DIALOG<<, not >>WINDOW<<. So, it's o.k. to
>operate background window gadgets with the left mouse button but it's not
>o.k. to use the same button by itself for background dialog buttons? Talk
>about inconsistent! :-)
Yes, it is inconsistant. Not everything in life is consistant, though.
I'm content to leave the standard behaviour the way it is.
>WinLIB PRO is easy to use, as the extended functionality is simply intuitive
>extensions of what the user already knows. Unlike some of atari's
>'extended features' which are decidedly non-intuitive. WinLIB strives to have
>a CONSISTENT, INTUITIVE user interface, whereas 'other' people seem to strive
>for exactly the opposite :-)
Please keep in mind that we are discussing GEM, though, not WinLIB PRO.
In order for the ST to have the consistant, intuitive, [...] GUI that
you want, every program would have to support it. Since it is not
likely that every programmer will use WinLIB PRO (no matter how good
it is) then your GUI will not be consistant, intuitive, [...] at
all, will it? That is my point. I am speaking from experience on
this point, by the way. I looked at the copy of the new demonstration
that you sent and I can honestly say that it does not look or operate
remotely like GEM usually does. The window gadgets are different, the
method of sizing a window is different, the method of iconification (such
as it is) is different, and so on. If anything, it looks quite a bit like
windows. It looks GOOD, but different.
>Fine with me. The last thing I need is a bashing about a library that has
>not yet been released, and is not yet FIT to be released.
I'll take that into account when I talk about it.
>Bzzt. Game over. Pure C works *FINE* with the Falcon. It always has. Pure C
>1.1 even has bindings *FOR* the Falcon. Where did you ever get that bizarre
>misconception that it didn't work on the Falcon? It isn't based on FIRST HAND
>EXPERIENCE is it?
First hand? No. If I'm wrong, I apologize. I was commenting from
second-hand information.
>I was applying it not only to assembler level debuggers, I was applying it
>to this conference in general. I've noticed that people have been slinging
>around comments about things (like the Pure C thing above) without having
>EXPERIENCE. Just slinging stuff around based on OPINION and not EXPERIENCE
>is a definite no-no.
If I had a Falcon, I would comment from experience... :) I was wrong,
I admitted it. Not the end of the world. The reason I mentioned it
was because I saw a message in comp.sys.atari.st mentioning a new
version (2.0) of Pure C that would work on the Falcon. I assumed that
meant there were problems with the old version on the Falcon.
>With PowerDOS this is not a problem. But I digress :-)
PowerDOS has a whole new set of problems... :(
>If Yat would actually POST the file we sent to the list... geez.... Where
>can I get WEGA, or Sys_Gem?
I'm not sure about WEGA, but SysGem is available at ftp.cs.tu-berlin.de
and other german FTP sites.
--
Michel Forget \\ mforget@elfhaven.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca //
Electric Storm Software \\ ess@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca //
PGP Public Key Finger. = 1F C0 D3 FE 40 51 7F 47 F3 4A C6 AD 6E 02 71 85