Re: ADTPro beta available

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <OcGdnUmXsNjKwSjZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > A more useful definition of a platform is any layer of uniformity that
> > enables a common market in applications.
>
>
> :-) ...that's the first time I've seen anyone use a marketing definitin
> of what a "platform" is.  By this definition, the Apple II is no longer
> a platform, because there is no longer any market for it.

No, you have to look at it with a time machine.  The Apple II *was*
a big market, hence a big platform, and, to those who enjoy nostalgia,
that period is forever frozen in time.

But from the point of view of *new* applications, the Apple II has
(almost) ceased to be a platform.

> > (Unix, for example, never quite made it to this status, mostly for
> > competitive reasons.)
>
>
> There was never just one Unix, true.  But that doesn't mean that a
> particular Unix platform wasn't a platform.....

Right, it's just that they were all separately much less viable
than they could have been if merged--though that might have meant
that some hardware vendors were winners at the expense of others.

The cost of developing and deploying applications for the "Unix
platform" was hugely increased by the disparity of the many vendors'
platforms, which created considerable "drag" for the whole market.

There was a window (no pun intended) of opportunity for a converged
Unix to play a significant role (maybe even dominant?) on the corporate
desktop, but that opportunity was missed.  The market growth that would
have enabled $50 Unix applications never happened.

Linux is trying to rekindle that flame, but it's so late and so far
down the road that their primary "fuel" is not the excellence of
thier offering, but fear and hatred of Microsoft.  Truly a movement
driven by negative energy.  ;-)  (BTW, this in no way applies to the
high priests of Linux, who are all devoted idealists--only to the
_hoi polloi_ who chant in the streets waving firebrands, or to the
corporate opportunists who see a stick to swing at MS.  ;-)

A revolution may take hold, but, like all revolutions, not without
most of its participants becoming tainted with the same ugliness that
they were revolting against.  Never underestimate the power of the
dark side.  ;-)

> > For this to be viable, the platform definition must be sufficiently
> > "complete" that one does not need to go outside it to write useful
> > applications, and it must be sufficiently "strong" that a single
> > testing regime is sufficient for deployment on all implementations
> > of the platform.
>
>
> By this definitions, I think there are no platforms.  There are always
> some holes somewhere...

That's why I said "sufficiently".  Avoid the trap of the ideal.

> The conclusion is that there are different opinions on what a "platform"
> actually is.  Different people have somewhat different semantics here.

Yep--that's what makes it interesting.  But try mine out from the point
of view of living your life and making decisions, as opposed to writing
textbooks, and I think you'll find it quite useful--even profitable. ;-)

-michael

Fast Sudoku solver for Apple II's!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."