🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2 Aug 89 18:26:15 GMT,
vkr@osupyr.mps.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) said:

In article <SHADOW.89Aug2040433@pawl.rpi.edu>
shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes:

On 1 Aug 89 12:54:54 GMT,
lofaso@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Bernie Lofaso) said:

Bernie> There is also a more elegance of design to the AmigaDos system.

Deven> AmigaDOS?  More elegant than Unix?  Don't make me laugh.

vkr> I would say that AmigaDOS looks like a project from a B student:
vkr> A good concept, but implementation shows lack of imagination and
vkr> more importantly, inability to adapt to a different evoirment:
vkr> Relying on BCPL thruout is only one instance of it. Another
vkr> example [why I would give the implementation a B rather than an
vkr> A] is packets implemented to support only co-routines, hijacking
vkr> of the Message.Node.Name field etc. But I side with Bernie:
vkr> Conceptually, AmigaDOS is more evolved than Unix. But then, it
vkr> did come latter.

Ah, yes.  But though Unix far predated AmigaDOS, the developers of
AmigaDOS seem to have thrown away many of the good ideas of Unix.  [I
don't know why they didn't use more Unix-like things (real pipes, a
hierarchical filesystem without backpointers, filesystem links,
fork/exec, file descriptor handling, etc.) but I have heard
[unsubstantiated] rumors of a prejudice against Unix by the
developers.

Exec, on the other hand, I would qualify as superior to Unix in a
number of ways.  [call it an A for design and an A- for
implementation.]  AmigaDOS has some good ideas, but a lot of things
done in a very poor fashion.  [B+ for design, C- for implementation.]

Deven
--
Deven T. Corzine        Internet:  deven@rpi.edu, shadow@pawl.rpi.edu
Snail:  2214 12th Street, Troy, NY 12180       Phone:  (518) 271-0750
Bitnet:  deven@rpitsmts, userfxb6@rpitsmts     UUCP:  uunet!rpi!deven
Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible.