Re: MS-DOS FST? => Resources

[vandry@CAM.ORG (Phillip Vandry)]

hochstrasse@urz.unibas.ch writes:

>Files containing only resources, code and data would be a good idea,
>but as history went, there were first data-or-program-only files.
>Evolving from this directly into resource-only is a big step...

I'll tell you what a big step is: making a whole new file format and having
to rewrite the operating system (alomst) because of it is a big step. One
certainly not worth taking.

>Of course we need them! Look at Teach files with the formatting in resources.

Teach files just use the resource fork because it's there. It would have
been just fine if resources didn't exist.

>> If it is really necessary to add comments to files, then this functionality

That's what read.me files are for. And they're much easier to deal with.

>There is just one point I criticize with resources: Prodos 8 returns
>an error when it must read an extended file. Why not just implement
>an optional warning, that you could lose data when handling the file
>on P8 and that's it. P8 programs could use files that just contain
>an rComment or other 'luxurious' resource.

That's only one of the reasons why the physical resource fork is a bad idea:
file system incompatibility.

>|  Urs Hochstrasser         |    'The command line interface is     |
>|  Strassburgerallee 79     |    10 year old technology for me!'    |

Only the best stay... Not that it has anything to do with resources.
(BTW, I don't normally comment on peoples' sigs, but you invited me to do so)
 ______________________________________________________________________
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Phillip Vandry | Vandry@Cam.Org | Suicide (n.): What to do if Macs   |
|________________|________________|_______________take over the world__|
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~