Re: The state of software design; too dependent on existing concepts?

[kauai96765@yahoo.com (The Apple Man)]

"Kelli Halliburton" <kelli217@crosswinds.not> wrote in message news:<SH4P8.2105$DR6.82326707@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
> "Paul Grammens" <grammens@svn.net> wrote in message
> 3d0a30aa@news.svn.net">news:3d0a30aa@news.svn.net...
> 
> > Well, Jeff's post was enlightening, anyway.  I never realized that he
> > opposes free access to abandon-ware because this forces all those
>  commercial
> > developers of Apple II software to make better software.  That's quite a
> > concept. As if developers would flock to the platform to make all that
>  money
> > if it weren't for abandonware.  I think if people were given an old IIgs
>  or
> > other Apple and found out they'd have to pay real money for software to
>  try
> > it out... it would go right in the trash.  At this point, the only thing
> > keeping the Apple II going is the minimal cost of the hardware and
> software.
> 
> I think it was more Jeff's point that access to abandonware keeps software
> authors *in general* from improving on past implementations. Freeware,
> shareware, commercial... whatever.
> 
> Bev has made some very interesting improvements to AW. She's a rarity. She's
> also a very rigid woman in many ways. Nothing personal, Bev, but you are
> quite inflexible about some things (and I'm talking about things entirely
> unrelated to CTT or to piracy -- example: kicking lurkers off the mailing
> list). That's irrelevant to her efforts, though. I wonder what a complete
> Beverly Cadieux rewrite of AW from the ground up would look like?
> 
> Some of the old apps from the days of yore could stand to be updated. Games
> too. But it's not always possible to do what Bev has done and secure a
> license to adapt an existing piece of software. In fact, it may not
> necessarily even be a good idea. Apple II programs are not usually
> fiendishly complex; the 6502 architecture doesn't really support that.
> There's nothing wrong with reinventing the wheel. If that had never been
> done, we'd probably all still be rolling things along on logs, and pulling
> the back one around to the front when it came loose.
> 
> Having, at best, limited access to existing code forces authors to think
> about the programming they're doing. As a result, they may in some cases
> actually come up with better answers than the old programs offered. Whether
> the resulting programs are offered as commercial, shareware, or freeware is
> irrelevant, although given the current state of the market, it would require
> a truly outstanding piece of software to warrant its being offered on a
> commercial basis.
> 
> I think that was Jeff's point. I'm sure people will take issue with it; it's
> even possible that I've misread Jeff's intentions completely and even he
> will take issue. But it seems to flow logically from the original post.



Well said Kelli.  That was my point with Gary and the others as well
in the thread on Tom T.  It is good to see that at least one person
not normally on the CSA2 is paying attention.

If people are going to develop products for the Apple II series, they
are going to have to be ground braking and not re-hashes of the same
old programs.   It would be nice if there was a newer version of
something like GNO which would bring the Apple II completely inline
with the current world.