milo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson) (02/14/89)
I've seen a lot of things flying around the network lately about
programming the Mac, the cost of being a developer...etc. I
thought I would throw in some random observations you might find
interesting.
1. Cost of documents...You guys think YOU have it bad, the cost
of a complete document set for DEC VAX/VMS runs a cool $3,900!
Granted the document set fills an ENTIRE bookshelf...but that's
still pretty expensive.
2. Development environment...I've used everything from ancient
CP/M 8080 systems all the way up to supercomputer sized boxes.
So far, the development systems available on ALL (not just Apple's)
current PCs get the booby prize from me! Working on a SIMPLE c
program last night on my Mac I discovered that a little thing
like a misplaced digit in an fread statement causes the entire
machine to lock up and required rebooting to clear. No matter
how nice MPW is, I have a hard time working on a machine where
a simple error can crash the whole shooting match right out from
under you. This is obviously due to the lack of any memory
protection hardware.
3. Apples new $$$$ programs for certified developers...personally
I think Apple may be killing themselves. It's hard enought to
get started as a Mac developer now. With this kind of price-of-entry
all the basement hackers will be all but cut off. So far, all
companies I know of who have tried to charge developers large amounts
of money have regretted it in the end. The most famous case being
the TI 9900 PC, TI wanted over $5000 for the hardware needed to be
a developer....the whole machine eventually died due to lack of software.
4. SMART stuff...one move DEC has made which Apple would be VERY
wise to follow. DEC has put ALL their documentation (several 6'
bookcases full) onto a CD and will be providing a program that
lets you Hypertext around the manuals, view diagrams...etc. If Apple
did this to INSIDE MACINTOSH, it would make things a lot easier on
developers. It would be cheaper too...since CD's can be mastered in
quantity for under $5. They could charge less for INSIDE MAC, or
charge the same price and have money left over so they could mail
out updates.
5. If somebody puts out a Mac editor as flexible and powerful as
DEC's VAX/TPU...I'l kiss their feet! Same goes for something like
the VAX source level debugger (I guess MPW 3.0 may have this?)
I guess that's about enough out of me...please don't get me wrong, I'm
not a Mac hater or a VMS/Unix junkie, just a long time (16 years)
systems analyst, programmer, designer and computer user. I love the
Mac, it's user interface and just about
everything about USING it. As a consultant I recomment it to people
all the time. The only thing about the Mac that really bugs me is that
it is very hard (and expensive, particularly with the new $$$ certified
developer program) to program. And yes...I've programmed in other
windowing systems similar to the Mac's...pretty much all the ones on
micros have the same problems. It's only when you get into Unix and
VAX machines that the development environments get better.
My point is...it doesn't HAVE to be this way!!
Please send comments, flames, job offers (really!) and any money
that happens to be burning a hole in your pocket to....
Greg Corson
19141 Summers Drive
South Bend, IN 46637
(219) 277-5306
{pur-ee,rutgers,uunet}!iuvax!ndmath!milocarl@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (Carl C. Hewitt) (02/14/89)
In article <1309@ndmath.UUCP> milo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson) writes: >I've seen a lot of things flying around the network lately about >programming the Mac, the cost of being a developer...etc. I >thought I would throw in some random observations you might find >interesting. . . comments deleted... . >...I love the >Mac, it's user interface and just about >everything about USING it. As a consultant I recomment it to people >all the time. The only thing about the Mac that really bugs me is that >it is very hard (and expensive, particularly with the new $$$ certified >developer program) to program. And yes...I've programmed in other >windowing systems similar to the Mac's...pretty much all the ones on >micros have the same problems. It's only when you get into Unix and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >VAX machines that the development environments get better. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You know, it's hearing comparisons like these of Macintoshes to minicomputers and their operating systems that makes me glad I have a Macintosh. How many other companies have taken a personal computer and created an environment that attracts so many creative developers, and has them _seriously_ comparing their development environment to those found on $20,000+ computer systems? Vaxes?? If it takes me another $15,000 to improve my development environment, I'll stick with my Mac for a little while I think... -- Carl
jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) (02/15/89)
In article <1309@ndmath.UUCP> milo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson) writes: >I've seen a lot of things flying around the network lately about >programming the Mac, the cost of being a developer...etc. I >thought I would throw in some random observations you might find >interesting. > >1. Cost of documents...You guys think YOU have it bad, the cost >of a complete document set for DEC VAX/VMS runs a cool $3,900! >Granted the document set fills an ENTIRE bookshelf...but that's >still pretty expensive. (Yup, it comes on a PALLET and fills a 4' wide shelf from your feet to over the top of your head.) >If Apple [put INSIDE MACINTOSH on a CD] >it would make things a lot easier on >developers. It would be cheaper too...since CD's can be mastered in >quantity for under $5. > Sure, but I don't think Apple CD-ROM drives can be sold in quantity for under $150. Wish they could ... besides, CD-ROM is sloooow! It's most useful as a compact source for things to run off on your LaserWriter. >5. If somebody puts out a Mac editor as flexible and powerful as >DEC's VAX/TPU...I'l kiss their feet! Same goes for something like >the VAX source level debugger (I guess MPW 3.0 may have this?) You know, this is one thing that REALLY PISSES ME OFF. I really enjoy using THINK C, but that *$*#^ brain-damaged, zero-frills, zero-features editor really irks me. (At least it doesn't "format" automatically like the old LSP editor! Yuccko!!!) WHY can't those turkeys at Think give me an editor that LETS ME MOVE FROM LINE TO LINE WITH THE LEFT AND RIGHT ARROW KEYS!?! This is *moronic*! What about the *KEYPAD* ... *MACROS* ... ways to do sophisticated editing without having to look at all those blasted dialog boxes! If they put 1/10 the time into the editor that they put into the source-level debugger ... sheesh. I would gladly pay an extra $25-$50 for an "optional-extra" editor with nice features ... some sort of command/macro language, regular-expression search, etc ... -- v v sssss|| joseph hall || 201-1D Hampton Lee Court v v s s || jnh@ece-csc.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Cary, NC 27511 v sss || the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my -----------|| employer, north carolina state university . . . . . . . . . . .
oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (02/15/89)
In article <3916@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes of LightSpeed C: >I would gladly pay an extra $25-$50 for an "optional-extra" editor with >nice features ... some sort of command/macro language, regular-expression >search, etc ... macro language: Macro makere is part of Apple's standard system release. regular-expression search: already in Lightspeed, ever since version 1.00! Read your manual!
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (02/16/89)
In article <3916@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: >You know, this is one thing that REALLY PISSES ME OFF. I really enjoy >using THINK C, but that *$*#^ brain-damaged, zero-frills, zero-features >editor really irks me. (At least it doesn't "format" automatically like >the old LSP editor! Yuccko!!!) LSP's editor isn't all that bad. It would be nice to have the option to turn the formatting on/off, but it comes in hand for catching stupid typos that you might not see until later. >WHY can't those turkeys at Think give me an editor that LETS ME MOVE FROM >LINE TO LINE WITH THE LEFT AND RIGHT ARROW KEYS!?! This is *moronic*! What >about the *KEYPAD* ... *MACROS* ... ways to do sophisticated editing without >having to look at all those blasted dialog boxes! If they put 1/10 the time >into the editor that they put into the source-level debugger ... sheesh. Why should THINK give you everything? They have given us a great compiler and debugger - that's what I want. The editor is nice, but if I need 'the whole kitchen sink', I'll QUED/M. If you want to remap some characters - get QuickKeys. For a program priced so inexpensively, they give most users what they want. If you need the all frills editor, pay a few more dollars - it will be worth it. Brian Bezanson The opinions are my own and based on being a satisfied customer of the THINK and CE products.
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (02/16/89)
>In article <3916@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes:
[Various complaints about the THINK C editor...]
The decision to use a given piece of software is purely your choice. If you
find you've made a bad decision, it is your prerogative to go out and find
a tool which best suits your needs.
--Rich
Rich Siegel
Staff Software Developer
THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp.
Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu
UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel
Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (02/17/89)
In article <28032@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes: >In article <3916@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes >of LightSpeed C: >>I would gladly pay an extra $25-$50 for an "optional-extra" editor with >>nice features ... some sort of command/macro language, regular-expression >>search, etc ... > >macro language: Macro makere is part of Apple's standard system release. >regular-expression search: already in Lightspeed, ever since version 1.00! >Read your manual! That hardly compares with a macro editor, such as Emacs, which allows you to combine sequences of searches and actions. Emacs has even more power than that but, Macro-Maker is a totally different animal that only supports unconditional sequences and is not as convenient as a built-in macro facility. With regard to the price, I would also gladly pay an additional $50 for a good macro editor - first choice Emacs. But, I can't help thinking how everyone was drooling over the idea of a source level debugger until the announcement of the $69 upgrade... And while we're at it, I'll also throw in another $75 for C++. Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. hollander@ti.com The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
anson@spray.CalComp.COM (Ed Anson) (02/17/89)
In article <1309@ndmath.UUCP> milo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson) writes: > >3. Apples new $$$$ programs for certified developers...personally >I think Apple may be killing themselves. It's hard enought to >get started as a Mac developer now. With this kind of price-of-entry >all the basement hackers will be all but cut off. Nobody's cutting off the basement hackers. Anybody who can't afford the $20 to sign up with APDA certainly can't afford to hack. And APDA provides everything the basement hacker might need from Apple. The Certified Developer program (not Apple Partners) is for the professional developer. It provides those extra services required to produce a commercial product. Make no mistake: Apple is explicit about it -- They will commit their resources to support development of software that will help sell equipment. (However, I am disappointed by the recent price increases on documentation.) I only hope that the new cost of the program will eventually result in better support. Lately, the Tech Support has been a bit slow. I hear they have a (temporary) shortage of personnel there. >4. SMART stuff...one move DEC has made which Apple would be VERY >wise to follow. DEC has put ALL their documentation (several 6' >bookcases full) onto a CD and will be providing a program that >lets you Hypertext around the manuals, view diagrams...etc. If Apple >did this to INSIDE MACINTOSH, it would make things a lot easier on >developers. It would be cheaper too... I second the motion. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... When Inside Macintosh comes out on CD ROM (with promises of regular updates), I'll then consider it worth the price to buy the drive. I currently spend as much time rummaging through documents (IM I-V, Tech notes, UseNet gossip, etc) as I do programming. Maybe more. I'm always looking for some obscure piece of information, and trying to make sure it is accurate and/or hasn't changed. That takes lots of time. Hopefully, a CD ROM version could be kept sufficiently current and complete to save me lots of time. Therefore, it would be worth the investment. -- ===================================================================== Ed Anson, Calcomp Display Products Division, Hudson NH 03051 (603) 885-8712, anson@elrond.CalComp.COM
kevinbe@microsoft.UUCP (Kevin Berg) (02/18/89)
> > >In article <3916@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: > > [Various complaints about the THINK C editor...] > > The decision to use a given piece of software is purely your choice. If you > find you've made a bad decision, it is your prerogative to go out and find > a tool which best suits your needs. This is most certainly true Rich, and so has decided the fate of many once great programs. I think the point is that people love the compiler, but yearn for a better editor, or a way to integrate an editor of their choice into the environment. Why not provide and document the necessary hooks so that people can use an editor of their choice (you will never please everybody with an "end-all" editor :-). Well, anybody listening? - k > Rich Siegel > Staff Software Developer > THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. > Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu > UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel > Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305
milo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson) (02/18/89)
From article <1309@ndmath.UUCP>, by milo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson):
A couple of comments....one person complained about my comparing a Mac to
a VAX system because there is such a large difference in price. This
is not entirely true...it is now possible to purchase a VAX complete with
19" monitor, 300MB disk, HD floppy, CD-Rom drive and 16 MEG of RAM for
in the neighborhood of $20,000 with Unix or VMS. You also get an
ethernet interface and a CD with the COMPLETE manual set (that's 20' of
shelf space according to DEC) and a preconfigured operating system.
All the development and debugging tools are included, your favorite
language can be had for about another $700. Now granted, you aren't going
to make any money writing games for this machine...but it is both price
compatable with the high-end Mac II computers and it's considerably
faster and nicer to develop software for.
$20,000 may seem like a lot...but try and put together a Mac II with that
much stuff on it for a lower price...I doubt you can do it. To make it
easier to compare...a diskless workstation with 19" display runs about
$8,200. This includes software licenses...it uses SCSI disks which are
available at reasonable prices anywhere.
Remember though...it's not the VAX hardware I was trying to compare...it's
the SOFTWARE that's so much better. There isn't anything in the VAX
development tools that couldn't be duplicated on the Mac...it's just that
nobody (including Apple) has DONE it yet.
I'm not trying to compare PC's of any kind to VAXes...I just want to see
better development environments on the Macs other personal computers I use.
It's almost always the case that the computers with the BEST development
systems have the BEST software....It's in the manufacturer's best interest
to put the very BEST development system they can on their computer, the better
the development system, the faster the software library for their computer
will build...and as we all know...if you have a big software library it
sells computers.
The best way to get TONS of software for a new computer is for the Manufactureer
to put together a really GREAT development system, then GIVE IT AWAY!
-----
Somebody else mentioned that CD's are too slow....they may make rotten
load devices...but they are GREAT for distributing software and storing
big documents. The duplication cost for CD's (in quantity) is WAY lower
than copying disks or tapes. Just by example, the DEC VMS CD is supposed
to contain the operating system, it's 20' of documentation, space for
NEARLY EVERY SOFTWARE PRODUCT DEC MAKES (that's over 100 packages) and
all their documentation as well. If they want to send you a whole new
copy of the OS, it costs them about 5 bucks per CD. Instead of having
stacks of documents and master disks (and waiting for ordered software
to be shipped) you just get a "key" over the phone that allows you to
use the software already on the CD. If CD's are too slow, you can always
copy the stuff to a hard disk, or use cache memory.
Imagine how much easier it would be to write Mac programs if you could
have a "developers CD" with all of Inside Mac, all the technotes, all
of Apples sample software, copies of MPW & compilers, the developers
tools and a whole selection of utilities & programs from other
companies. You get the CD, buy licenses to "turn on" what you need
and you are done. No need for a table filled with masses of manuals or
to have a huge hard-disk to store all the sample stuff on. They could
ship all the fonts, DA's, system software...etc as well, and the total
cost to send it out would be LESS than what they send out now. You could
afford to master a whole new CD every month and mail it out for what
Apple now pays to copy and send out a packet of technotes each month.
And the info on the CD would be more complete!
If they had a service like this, I would gladly pay $600 for a CD-rom.
it would pay for itself in no time flat in saved time alone.
Send comments, flames, job offers (really!) and any spare change you
don't know what to do with to:
Greg Corson
19141 Summers Drive
South Bend, IN 46637
(219) 277-5306
{pur-ee,rutgers,uunet}!iuvax!ndmath!milo
bob@accuvax.nwu.edu (Bob Hablutzel) (02/18/89)
[Talk deleted about the VAXStation] I just wanted to say in passing - this is great hardware. We don't have a VAXStation, but we do have a MicroVAX 2000 (comparable), which is not that much bigger than a Mac II (smaller footprint, actually, since it's in two parts) and runs full VMS operating system. In fact, it will support multiple users, etc. (Now - I don't want to discuss the differences between the VMS school and the Mac school of computing; drop me a note if you really want to get into that...) >Remember though...it's not the VAX hardware I was trying to compare...it's >the SOFTWARE that's so much better. There isn't anything in the VAX >development tools that couldn't be duplicated on the Mac...it's just that >nobody (including Apple) has DONE it yet. Well, yes and no. DEC does put out decent compilers, although they aren't perfection. I don't know if it's been fixed, but the Pascal used to generate some fairly poor CASE statement code (in some special cases (or CASES, as the case may be...)). And the DEC idea of 'one machine, one call standard' is one of the machines strongest points. BUT, IMHO, the editors can't touch the MPW editor (including, nea especially, TPU), and MMU and the like are expensive. What DEC does have, and Apple could and should and would improve their machine if they did, is the best damn documentation I've ever layed my eyes on. These people actually believe in (oh no!) _examples_ of what the routines do. For complicated routines, you can have several pages of examples to should the many different ways the routine can be used. APPLE SHOULD BE DOING THIS!!. I don't care if it makes the Apple documentation 6' of shelf, I'm tired of having to use the damned debugger to understand trap calls! Sorry, didn't mean to get carried away. But I do wish Apple would produce complete, accurate, updatable, extensible documentation sets for the Mac. If it were seperate from Inside Mac, and I had to flush away that investment, I wouldn't mind. Great programs only come from great documentation. >The best way to get TONS of software for a new computer is for the >Manufactureer to put together a really GREAT development system, then GIVE >IT AWAY! I wouldn't consider either the VAX or the Mac to be 'new', nor would I consider DEC 'giving away' anything.
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (02/19/89)
In article <691@microsoft.UUCP> kevinbe@microsoft.UUCP (Kevin Berg) writes: >> >into the environment. Why not provide and document the necessary hooks so >that people can use an editor of their choice (you will never please >everybody with an "end-all" editor :-). Why not indeed? In a future version of the product, there will probably be a way to hook in a different editor. At present, you can still use the editor of your choice, edit your files, and do a Use Disk on the project. R. Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305
jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) (02/19/89)
In article <10330136@accuvax.nwu.edu> bob@accuvax.nwu.edu (Bob Hablutzel) writes: > >What DEC does have, and Apple could and should and would improve their >machine if they did, is the best damn documentation I've ever layed my >eyes on. These people actually believe in (oh no!) _examples_ of what the >routines do. For complicated routines, you can have several pages of examples >to should the many different ways the routine can be used. APPLE SHOULD ... Excuse me if I sound glib, but have you used (for example) LIB$FIND_FILE lately? (Or worse, LIB$FILE_SCAN or the SYS$ equivalent?) Shudder. Unless you're adept at the mental MACRO-to-C or FORTRAN-to-C conversion (neither is so easy considering the VAX Calling Standard's complexity), well, you're likely to experiment with a lot of different parameter lists before you find the one that works ... For what it's worth, I don't think the VMS documentation is that much more complete than the Mac documentation. VMS documentation is much more centralized, however, and I think the Tech Notes are something of an abomination. Inside Macintosh should have been loose-leaf all along, and it should be updated piece-wise as necessary, and totally on a regular basis (about every year). Tech Notes? Yuck! Interesting stuff, but why can't it be in Inside Mac where it belongs? (Even worse are the two "odd" Inside Macs IV and V ...) lately? (Or worse, LIB$FILE_SCAN or the system equivalent?) -- v v sssss|| joseph hall || 201-1D Hampton Lee Court v v s s || jnh@ece-csc.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Cary, NC 27511 v sss || the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my -----------|| employer, north carolina state university . . . . . . . . . . .
milo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson) (02/22/89)
From article <10330136@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by bob@accuvax.nwu.edu (Bob Hablutzel): > > one of the machines strongest points. BUT, IMHO, the editors can't touch > the MPW editor (including, nea especially, TPU), and MMU and the like are > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If you really believe this, then either (a.) Apple has made a HECK of a lot of improvements in the MPW 3.0 editor or (b.) You haven't used the VMS 5.0 version of the EVE/VAXtpu editor yet. There are a HUGE number of improvements and new features. I use both EVE and MPW editors every day. I dearly LOVE the fact that I can do things like cut & past between files, command lines and the find/search/replace command lines (can't do it in MPW cause CUT/PASTE is inactive when the dialogs are up). The other useful function is being able to actually write extentions that operate on the text in the (multiple) edit buffers. If you have some complicated function you need (prettyprinting, formatting, building if/then else blocks) you can write it yourself. This is what I miss the most in MPW's editor. The new version of EVE also supports mice and the DECwindows version will support multiple windows. I think it's more than an equal to any editor I've ever seen. With all the weight Apple is putting behind OOPS languages, I would think they would have written an extendable editor for MPW by now. > What DEC does have, and Apple could and should and would improve their > machine if they did, is the best damn documentation I've ever layed my > eyes on. These people actually believe in (oh no!) _examples_ of what the > routines do. For complicated routines, you can have several pages of examples > to should the many different ways the routine can be used. APPLE SHOULD > BE DOING THIS!!. I don't care if it makes the Apple documentation 6' of > shelf, I'm tired of having to use the damned debugger to understand trap > calls! > DEC's documentation isn't perfect by a longshot...but they DO provide a LOT more examples, particularly in V5. This is something I would REALLY like Apple to do more of. I to, have occasionally had real problems figuring out how some of the toolbox calls are supposed to work. If one picture is worth a thousand words, one sample program is worth a thousand lines of explanation. I REALLY appreciate the effort Apple has gone to in their sending out sample code for the Macintosh. It has helped me on many occasions. I only wish they would come out with samples to cover use of sound and appletalk. The biggest problem I have with Inside Mac is the number of volumes and technotes I have to go through to find what I'm looking for. With Inside Mac up to five volumes it causes problems. You have to scan all 5 books when you want the answer to a question like "is there a call that does..." or to find the most recent doc on a call. This would be where CD's would come in handy...I would guess that each of those smaller inside Mac volumes costs between $5 & $15 to print plus mailing. A CD could hold EVERY DOCUMENT APPLE HAS with room leftover and would cost about $4 per copy (perhaps less) to master in quantity. I understand there are other expenses (like paying people to write the manuals) but they would be the same regardless of how the manuals are distributed. If Apple would use CD's they could easily afford to send out ALL NEW documentation every few months. Then people wouldn't have to wade through 5 volumes and 200 technotes to find what they want. Not to mention...they would probably sell a lot of CD drives... > >>The best way to get TONS of software for a new computer is for the >>Manufactureer to put together a really GREAT development system, then GIVE >>IT AWAY! > > I wouldn't consider either the VAX or the Mac to be 'new', nor would I consider > DEC 'giving away' anything. I wasn't speaking of the VAX or Mac in particular here...I was talking about any new computer (ie: the NEXT and those machines still on the drawing board) Please send flames, comments, job offers (really) and any money that's burning a hole in your pocket to.... Greg Corson 19141 Summers Drive South Bend, IN 46637 (219) 277-5306 {pur-ee,rutgers,uunet}!iuvax!ndmath!milo
milo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson) (02/22/89)
From article <3923@ece-csc.UUCP>, by jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall): > In article <10330136@accuvax.nwu.edu> bob@accuvax.nwu.edu (Bob Hablutzel) writes: >> >>What DEC does have, and Apple could and should and would improve their >>machine if they did, is the best damn documentation I've ever layed my >>eyes on. These people actually believe in (oh no!) _examples_ of what the >>routines do. For complicated routines, you can have several pages of examples >>to should the many different ways the routine can be used. APPLE SHOULD > ... > > Excuse me if I sound glib, but have you used (for example) LIB$FIND_FILE > lately? (Or worse, LIB$FILE_SCAN or the SYS$ equivalent?) Shudder. Unless > you're adept at the mental MACRO-to-C or FORTRAN-to-C conversion (neither > is so easy considering the VAX Calling Standard's complexity), well, you're > likely to experiment with a lot of different parameter lists before you > find the one that works ... > VMS documentation is far from perfect I agree...but just as an aside, at least it has a FILE_SCAN system call (to scan for files that match a wildcard). It also has goodies like a callable editor (much better than textedit, although it doesn't handle fonts), data compression routines, intertask communications and (most important) a relatively transparent way of sending/receiving data over networks. If Appletalk offered a simple data-stream interface I would be using it like crazy...ATP and other current protocols require TOO MUCH WORK to make them practical for casual use (like chat programs, distributed programs...etc). I'm not trying to slam the toolbox...I love it's menu handlers and other goodies, particularly the user interface stuff. But it's still missing a lot of the stuff I consider ESSENTIAL in an operating system. Some of the fault lies in the fact that the core of the toolbox being written for a 128K mac...the Mac hardware has grown faster than the toolbox/finder. And some of the things Apple originally did in the toolbox on the 128k Mac could be done much better on the current Mac hardware...trouble is, they are stuck with the toolbox in it's current format...if they change it too much, all the existing Mac programs wouldn't work anymore. Send comments, flames, job offers (really) and any old money you don't know what to do with to.... Greg Corson 19141 Summers Drive South Bend, IN 46637 (219) 277-5306 {pur-ee,rutgers,uunet}!iuvax!ndmath!milo