🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5985@ubc-cs.UUCP> halliday@cc.ubc.ca (Laura Halliday) writes:
>In article <7614@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> rfellman@ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) writes:
>>In article <1630@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>>> - A Resource Manager, permitting (among other things) international
>>>   localization *without recompilation*, including all of the system
>>>   software

I have never, ever understood why this is such a BIG DEAL.  Users can
do their own localizations, the software company doesn't have to; SO WHAT?
The company still has to translate documentation, etc.  What difference
does it make if the program has to be recompiled with new strings?

At best, this is a minor convenience for a few users.

(And it is possible to extract .nib files from NeXT apps, and play with
them, ala ResEdit.)

>>>
>>> - Built-in facilities for handling non-roman writing systems and keyboards

>I like NeXT, and may very well buy one next year. But Amanda has pointed out
>a serious flaw in the way NeXT does things...

As for the Script Manager, it is also a serious flaw in how APPLE does things.
How many applications are Script-Manager compatible?  Not many.  How many
Apple applications are Script-Manager compatible?  NONE *I* know of.

The fact that the facility exists on the Macintosh does give it a head
start, granted; but as a practical feature NOW, TODAY, the Script Manager
is NO BIG DEAL.

And as for the consistency of the User Interface, let me point out that
NeXT makes it EASY for developers to comply with the Interface.  Apple
makes it VERY HARD INDEED, though they are beginning to address this
with some object-oriented tools.


-- 
Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office
Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu  UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner
IfUMust:  (217) 244-1765