🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4j41vs$31t@neptune.ethz.ch>, 
rvoegeli@inf.ethz.ch (Roland Andre Voegeli) writes:
> skulski@fermi.nsrl.rochester.edu wrote:
> 
> :  Do not you think that to some extent System-3 + Gadgets tried 
> : to follow the "marketing hype" of overlapped windows, as the original
> : System interface was considered too awkward?
> 
> With Oberon System 3, J.Gutknecht tried a different approach 
> to system-objects than it was done in Oberon V4. 

Thank you for the comment. I agree with you that System-3 innovation
is in its object management module. Such a module was missing in V4,
and consequently every application had to define its own local 
object management. Say, Dialogs have persistent objects of its 
own, so does Kepler. I am acutely aware of this fact since I also 
had to develop my own persistent object library, which I would 
not have done if there was such a V4 library agreed upon.

> V4 supports the "element paradigm". Unfortunately,
> Elements are very strongly bound to texts. 

Do not you think that V4 Texts plus Elements can be viewed simply 
as a lightweight user interface? This interface proved itself to be 
very powerful and flexible, but one should not attach too much 
weight to it. If one does not like Elements, one is always free 
to define some other user interface. Dialogs do exactly this.
Therefore, I do not quite agree with your "unfortunately". 
Elements are purely optional.

> System 3 objects seem to me to be the more "regular" concept.

The whole issue is then that V4 does not include Objects.Obj. 
Well, then why do not you or somebody else just release Objects.Mod, 
and V4 will become just as regular as System-3 ?

> : Did it get any appreciable market share among "end users" who were 
> : supposedly the target? 
> 
> No, but it gave some ideas to people such as the Oberon Microsystems 
> staff. Just look at Oberon/F.

This is of course good. But I still think System-3 failed to become 
popular even among us here on the net, what IMHO is a pity. It is a very 
nice System, but how can use it if it was not ported to my OS? 

> : IMHO Oberon needs marketing, not marketing hype. These can be two 
> : different things.
> 
> I agree with you.

OK, then what about this: the first step in marketing should be to stop 
making mistakes. Why is System-3 still not available for SGI, RS6000, etc?
Why are V4 and S3 still not merged into System-5 ? Why did you lose the 
best selling point, which was portability of Oberon programs across 
so many platforms: Unix, Amiga, Mac and PC ? These are obvious problems 
which were created within developers community. You guys are bright enough 
to see these problems, then why do not you just gather in one (not so large)
room and just make right decisions? This would be a very large step 
in the right direction. Marketing could follow later.

I hope all this is neither impossible nor outrageous. What do you think?

Wojtek