Louis Rizzuto wrote in a message to Wim Veldhuis:

WV>Louis Rizzuto wrote in a message to All:

 LR> Hi, Wim.
Hi Louis,

 LR>    What the ref manual does specify is following a series of
 LR> steps to carefully extract the procedure stuff and use it with 
 LR> a TV interface - which I am inclined to follow to avoid buggy 
 LR> software. 

At our company we have a commercial application which is set up this way
(under windows that is). The person who made it had no experience with OO,
but knew windows (he started at version 2.0!) and could use the OWL library
quite well. All the problem oriented stuff was procedural. Since the user
interface is completely seperated from the problem, it works. If he had to
do it again he would take a more OOP approach :-)

 LR>    That's curious.  Do I understand you correctly that you 
 LR> convert your (Borland) Pascal stuff to Windows and it was less 
 LR> difficult than to TV?  Did that include with Windows PM? I 
 LR> think I may be doing that next using the procedure approach - 
 LR> without OOPS and TV.
Wrong, I meant Windows is more difficult, although not much. The API is new
which gives the new problems (along with displaycontexes, pens and the
alike).

 LR>    From what I hear of the number of people using Windows
 LR> tho, I am still inclined to do Windows next and then OS/2. This 
 LR> way both development systems will become stronger, and more 
 LR> reliable, in the market place. That is what I think right 
 LR> *now*, but I will make that decision when I am on the verge of 
 LR> going beyond DOS.
 LR>  
OS/2 is still growing (quite fast) which means you still can quite easily
get a larger market share, where the Windows market has a larger volume
thus more money for a very good program. 


 LR>    Plus, I hear that many users have 286's/386's, and few,
 LR> in    comparison, have moved on to the 486's - so that DOS
 LR> market looks    healthy and well and big enough to merit
 LR> giving considerable    attention to right now.  Next year
 LR> will have to wait till next year.    :)

 LR>    You know what they say about pioneers?  They wind up with
 LR> arrows in their backs.  :) I have had my fair share of
 LR> arrows in my career. Now I don't have to be on the
 LR> technological cutting edge all the  time.
How about Steve Jobbs, Bill Gates (years ago), P. Kahn. They were all
pioneers, and it sure did them good !


 LR>    Being on the edge as far as my apps is concerned is
 LR> enough for me right now.  I have to be ahead of everyone
 LR> there - or else. 

 LR>    What do you think, Wim?

I don't know what apps you are making. But I think you should look at the
average user for the app, and which system he is running. Could be very
well your target on the market is moving to windows or OS/2. Then with all
DOS users around, you still won't sell anything. In my idea you should move
to OS/2, you can start with OS/2 full screen apps. Your DOS app should be
relatively easy to port to there, using the 16-bit OS/2 version of BP7
(patch). Of course this depend on your specific app. But I think a majority
of people who buy software have relative new computers and want to try the
new OS's.

 LR>    BTW, do you have any products released yet?  For where -
 LR> Europe or the USA or both?
I'm a professional programmer. I do not write shareware, I just write on
demand and those programs are propriarity and won't be released.

mvg/wr
  
--- timEd/2 1.01.g1+