Reply-To:	<arfa AT clara DOT net>
From:	"Arthur" <arfa AT clara DOT net>
To:	"DJGPP Mailing List" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: allegro == or != programming
Date:	Fri, 7 Aug 1998 17:25:40 +0100
Message-ID:	<000301bdc220$041ea0a0$944e08c3@arthur>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Importance:	Normal
In-Reply-To:	<35cbd534.1610985@news.Austria.EU.net>

> >But think of all the microcode the Intel engineers wrote, and how much
> >you're using that.  That's cheating.  Okay, so you have to design your
> >own CPU, motherboard, hardware, etc.  But wait-- think of all the work
>
> Then again, that might be a good idea. So we could get rid of that nasty DOS
> limitations. :) I'd always vote for a Motorola above a WIntel. :)

Yes!!!

For too long have these poor people have taken for granted the use of Wintel and
APIs. If we had a good processor to program on, we wouldn't need APIs (heard of many
APIs on the ST/Amiga/Mac?). Put it this way: on the ST about half the applications on
the market were 100% ASM. This included Papyrus, a document processor which had more
features than Word'98 could shake a stick at. You couldn't do that on a Wintel
machine (did I hear someone calling VB5?).

> >that went into inventing the transistor.   You use it-- that's cheating,
> >too...
> >
> >Face it-- you can't do anything all by yourself, so why even try?
>
> Yup. Because you are a cheater if not. :)

The point was that you're not *really* programming something if you use another
library. This I don't agree with. However, the key is understanding. If you don't
fully understand what each function in your program does, then you don't know exactly
what your program does. Some people can live with that. I can't.

Transistors will be obsolete once quantum processors come into being, anyway :^)

James Arthur
jaa AT arfa DOT clara DOT net
ICQ#15054819

- Raw text -