🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2187@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes:
>	What about the example I gave of two resident programs cohabitating
>    and interacting even though written in different Languages?  While
>    you don't NEED to have multi-tasking to do this, it makes an otherwise
>    complicated job very much easier, and therefore much more likely to be
>    successfully accomplished.  It certainly is attractive to me because
>    it means I don't have to "share" any of my source with someone whom
>    I may want to collaborate with.

I think Wade is right on target here.  Multi-tasking does not have to be seen 
by the user to be important.  On the Amiga, you can't HELP but use multi-
tasking, because the operating system is using it all the time.  Each disk
drive has a separate "Filing System" process running (use MonProc, you'll see
them), there is a separate input task running (I believe that Intuition really
is an input handler, so technically, it runs as part of the input device task),
each CLI window has a console task associated with it, the serial port has a
separate task controlling it.

Why is this important?  Because it makes it so much easier to do things.  For
example, early on in the Amiga's life, Matt Dillon (I think) distributed a 
set of asynchronous file routines.  These are very useful, and almost trivial 
to implement under a multi-tasking OS (not to belittle Matt's work - it's quite
good).

Or how about the Workbench?  Contrary to many people's belief, the WB is NOT
the operating system.  It's just a program.  A plain, old, ordinary program, 
with no special tricks or hooks.  An ordinary mortal could write a program that
does similar actions.  Witness HackBench.  I've often thought about writing
a WB replacement myself.

If you want to talk about disk swapping, try switching between applications 
on a Macintosh.  It has to load the Finder every time.  Why do you think theres
a "mini-finder" menu option?  I keep trying to pull down the "screen" and use 
the finder which I expect to still be running back there.

I've written programs that monitor other programs (MonProc and MonIDCMP), and
that run as input handlers (ClickUpFront, HeliosMouse, wKeys), and some stuff
that I haven't released.  These would be much more difficult without
multi-tasking.

Code can be made much more modular with multi-tasking, and smaller, too.  Unix
people should love this, because you can make programs much more like filters,
except you have both ends of the pipe running at the same time, passing data 
via a message port, or even a PIPE: device.  Functions don't have to be 
duplicated from program to program.  For instance, if I write a program that
graphs a function, I will not have to add a save-to-IFF-file option, because
I already have a program that lets me select a portion of a window or screen
and save it as an IFF file.  That's a normal program - no special desk-
accessory hooks, no special requirements about what programs I can use it with,
or what ones I HAVE to have running when I use it.

Don't get me wrong, desk-accessories are great (I'd never be able to use a Mac
without them), but they are an attempt to achieve multi-taksing where it's
not built into the system to start with.  Admirable!  Great stuff! Keep up
the good work!  But don't complain when someone offers you what you've been
trying to achieve all along.

>        THE POINT IS THIS:  As a programmer I find the idea of writing
>      such a program as being much simpler with multi-tasking facilities
>      than without them.

Exactly!  Right on!

>         My question for you is, what do you have against multi-tasking?

I also wonder the same thing.  Where's the beef?

>      Take OUR (all of us who have given testomonials) word for it that
>      the disk swapping "nightmare" is indeed just a bad dream.

As I mentioned before, I'd hate to have to load the Workbench in from disk
every time I quit using a program!  I'm much happier letting it run in the
background until I need it again.

One last comment:  (finally :-)  the times I find multi-tasking the most 
helpful is when I WASN'T expecting to have to use it.  If I'm using a word
processor writing a paper, and need to check some results, I can just start up
my statistical analysis program to get my answers (and I can keep on writing
while it loads in of the floppy).  I don't want to have to know ahead of time
that I need to start up whatever carousel or special multi-tasking editor
I need in order to do this.  If I knew ahead of time, I'd have done the
statistics before I started the word-processor!

Well, I've gone on far too long as it is.  Thanks for listening.

>							   Wade.
>UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
>ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
>INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM

Davide P. Cervone
dpvc@tut.cc.rochester.edu
dpvc@ur-tut.UUCP
DPVC@UORDBV.BITNET