[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Complete Basic?
Charlie wrote:
"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?
More like a car is not a "car to learn about cars on" if the air
conditioner keeps you from getting at the engine. ;-)
The Apple II wasn't just a collection of chips--it was the embodiment
of the hacker ideal of minimal, efficient logical design with great
malleability for simple adaptation to any task.
"Beauty = Function / Complexity", and by that measure, the Apple II
was at least a "10". ;-) The II line continued to hold the record
until the IIgs, at which point complexity increased much more than
functionality, causing a big dip in engineering beauty.
The "joking but serious" measure I've used in the past is "total weight
of system" divided by "total weight of documentation required to fully
exploit the system"--another way to compute engineering beauty. ;-)
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.
Indeed--the "French connection" proved that--but it wasn't easy, like
Applesoft!
And that's because of the innate complexity of the underlying hardware
of the IIgs (admittedly further complicated by a requirement to remain
compatible with earlier II's).
The 65816 is a horrible kludge of a processor architecture, particularly
in contrast to the clean, spare 6502. The Ensoniq chip is a universe
unto itself, completely "tacked on" to the IIgs design. The SHR modes
are distinctly non "Apple II", even having a different pixel clock!
No, the IIgs is not a "natural progression" of the Apple II--it is a
Frankenstein by comparison with the "organic" hardware of the II.
I realize that its design was pushed by many forces, not the least of
which was the absence of Woz's disciplined hand. And the disdain of
Jobs must have cost the project dearly. But I judge it not for how it
came to be as much as for what it actually is and is not.
It, like the Mac, symbolizes the shift of Apple away from the hobbyist
machine toward a consumer machine. A shift that was inevitable if the
company was to survive and prosper, but one deserving of a lament from
hobbyists, at least.
When your attempts to solve a problem with a machine become dominated
by trying to understand and control the machine rather than trying to
understand and solve the problem, the balance is off. This is a
function of system complexity, system documentation, and the provided
programming tools.
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 :-)
Yep--been there, done that! In fact, the sweetness of digital computers
for me was their universal (and even easy) programmability to solve
whatever problem came to mind. ;-) In fact, it's the precipitous
decrease in "casual" programmability that I most lament in computers
since the //e.
Ah, well--I don't expect to change anyone's mind, after all "there's
no disputing tastes"--so I'll let it go. It's just my opinion.
I still love sitting down after supper and dashing off a 50-line
program to try something and provide it with graphical display of
the results! ;-) Sometimes that's the end of it, and sometimes
it results in a (completely different) full-blown program--but it's
always great fun, and the computer is seldom in the way of the
problem I'm focusing on. The computer? A //e with Applesoft!
-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."