Re: Complete Basic?

["Charlie" <charlieDOTd@verEYEzon.net>]

"David Schmenk" <dschmenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:bC2Gi.33748$RX.21877@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> Michael J. Mahon wrote:
>> Charlie wrote:
>>> "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message 
>>> 5PqdnVXUWsYfRnvbnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com">news:5PqdnVXUWsYfRnvbnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> As I've observed before, a GUI means that almost any program you want
>>>> to write will be 10% your functionality and 90% GUI wrangling.  That's
>>>> a heck of a tax!
>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly true (and I'm someone who likes GUI programming).  There are 
>>> non-GUI tools in the IIgs toolbox but text based programs were pretty 
>>> rare on the IIgs.  Merlin 16+ is one I used (and liked) a lot and it is 
>>> GSOS/text.  The Orca text shell is another.
>>
>> True, but only developers used text-based apps on the IIgs.
>>
>> The original Apple II "idea" was that its considerable capabilities
>> were accessible out-of-the box to anyone who was patient and could
>> read--a true "bicycle for the mind."
>>
>> By contrast, the Apple IIgs (like the III before it) had even greater
>> capabilities, but access to them was wrapped in prodigious complexity
>> and locked up by the absence of out of the box documentation and tools.
>>
>> I still say that the IIgs, like the III, departed radically from the
>> original Apple II idea of *accessible computer power*, and having Woz's
>> signature on the case of the first 50,000 or so was irony.
>>
>> -michael
>>
>> NadaPong: Network game demo for Apple II computers!
>> Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/
>>
>> "The wastebasket is our most important design
>> tool--and it's seriously underused."
>
> I think the difference is that the III and IIgs were "tweeners". Neither 
> this nor that.  The III was supposed to be a serious business machine but 
> hobbled with II compatibility.  I honestly don't know what the IIgs was 
> supposed to be.  A Mac for the home?  A high end game machine?  Too slow 
> for either. Whatever.

The IIgs was supposed to be what it is:  A natural progression of the Apple 
II line.  It gave you more memory, a 16 bit processor that was fully 
compatible with the 6502 and the toolbox is nothing more than a bunch of 
routines much like the system monitor is a collection of routines.  Use them 
if you want or write your own.
I do believe that the IIgs was not all it could have been but to suggest 
that it isn't an Apple II makes no sense to me.  Is a car not a car if it 
has air conditioning?

>
> The II had a purpose and focus.  It was the computer Woz wanted for
> himself to explore what it meant to be a microcomputer.  It came out of 
> the box ready to explore.  There was no right or wrong way to program it. 
> No GUI that forced you to use the widgets handed to you in a library or 
> toolbox.  No Managers.

Come on, no one was forced to use the GUI on an Apple IIgs or the toolbox or 
managers either.

> Why, when I was a youngster I learned to program by typing hex code into 
> the monitor!  Harumph!  ( I know somebody is going to reply with: I had 
> toggle switches! or: I had to program core memory with tweezers!)

Toggle switches!  You youngsters had it easy.  I had to build a new computer 
for each problem. (analog computer, not digital).  Couldn't resist :-)

Charlie