🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <244@gethen.UUCP> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes:
>In article <3349@uw-june.UUCP> bnfb@uw-june.UUCP (Bjorn Freeman-Benson) writes:
>>A "software-IC" would seem to be a more thoroughly thought out, better
>>designed, unit of software that could be used for multiple purposes.
>
>	You have said that the Macintosh Toolbox routines aren't what you
>are talking about, and it seems to me that they, as well as the similar
>libraries available on most complex machines today...
>...If the routines are going
>to be flexible enough to be used for different purposes, they are also
>going to be complex enough to be difficult to use correctly for any of 
>them.  If they are simple enough to be used correctly by "the masses", as
>you put it, then it seems to me that they will also be much less flex-
>ible.  How do you propose to solve this dilemma?  Examples, please.

You asked for it!  I have used both the Macintosh Toolbox routines
to work with windows and the Interlisp-D windowing system.  Both will
do almost exactly the same types of things, but I can write a program
to do windowing in Interlisp-D about 10 times faster!  The keys here
are - 
	(1) Graceful defaults - if I don't want to anything nonstandard
		then all I do is make a simple call or two and there
		it is.  Scroll bars, selection, shrinking to an icon,
		everything.
	(2) Message-base paradigm - when I do want to do something
		nonstandard I attach a function to the property
		on a window.  Lets say I want the mouse pointer
		to change when it enters window A, I just putprop
		a routine to do that on the "enter-window" property
		of window A and now every time the mouse cursor enters
		window A that function is called and the cursor changes.
		All there is to it!!!
Example - I like the "zoom" feature for windows (moving quickly between
	the last two window sizes).  I wrote one for my mac (after I
	was an experienced mac-hack) and it took me about 2 days.  I wrote
	one as a first windowing program for Interlisp-D and it took 
	about 3 hour.  The mac one is buggy and the Interlisp-D 
	one has not been touched after that 3 hours work.

I'm ramblin' on so will wrap it up saying "what you want is not JUST
a powerful interface, but a WELL THOUGHT OUT powerful interface.  This
does not mean one that does everything you want: it means one that does
everything you want with the LEAST amount of programming effort."  (That's
the hard part.)

--ritchey ruff

	ruffwork@cs.orst.edu
	{ hp-pcd | tektronix }!orstcs!ruffwork

	It's against my programming to impersonate a diety!
		-- C3PO