🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1259@key.COM> russ@xanadu.key.COM (Russell Donnan) writes:
>>In article <21247@ut-emx.UUCP> chrisj@emx.UUCP (Chris Johnson) writes:
>>
>>The Macintosh Portable is a *real* Macintosh in every respect - right down
>>to the fact that developers that don't play by the rules when they write
>>software are going to create programs that are very likely to break, sooner
>>or later.  ... <deleted>
>
>This I don't agree with.  Most of the programs which don't work on the
>portable follow the Macintosh Developer Guidlines to the letter.  What
>has happened is a machine which was not in the guidlines has come out,
>and the software had to make an assumption about it.  Now, please tell
>me, if you had to make a guess...  Would you think that a new Mac would
>have Color QD?  I know I would.  Anyway, I'm sure the new software will
>be out soon enough.  Well worth the wait for the Mac Portable IMHO.

Actually, NO, I wouldn't assume that any new Macintosh would automatically
have Color QuickDraw.  Furthermore, there would be no need for me to make
any such assumption.  A simple call to SysEnvirons will tell me whether 
the Mac my software is running on has Color QuickDraw or not (via. the 
hasColorQD field of the SysEnvRec).  I mean, that's what it's there for, 
right?  

If Apple had meant developers to make assumptions about what function-
ality would be present in future Macs, they'd have been saying things like
"if you get a machineType number greater than 4 (envMacII), you'll know
you have Color QuickDraw", but they've said no such thing, and, in fact,
they've gone to some trouble to provide functions like SysEnvirons() and
Gestalt() so that developers can check for *specific* functionality without
making any assumptions.

I mean, geez!  :-)

Cheers,
----Chris (Johnson)
----chrisj@emx.utexas.edu