-=> On 24 Jan 98  23:09:04 you wrote to me <=-
Hi Darin,
MS> From what I've read here, it seems to me that to program an
MS> Intel-based machine, whether for DOS, Windows, or OS/2 involves
MS> some extensions to C.
MS> Whereas this is not the case for the Amiga - all the low-level OS
MS> functions are callable using normal C syntax.  No weird hex
MS> "interrupt services", no Pascal calling convention, no C++ - the OOP
MS> system in Intuition, our basic GUI library, was derived from a
MS> SmallTalk model but was designed for easy access using normal C.
DM> This is not the case for OS/2 or Win32.  Only DOS and Win16 are that
DM> backward.  :-)
That's good to hear.  However, I still reckon the Amiga kernel
library function & data names are a lot easier to read & use than
the little bit of OS/2 & Windows??  code I've looked at.
Firstly, we don't use that crazy Hungarian Goulash in our machines.  :)
On a more serious & significant note, we don't normally use callback
functions to build a GUI.  Sure, building a GUI is always a big step
up for the programmer who has been doing simple stream-IO based
programs for a year or two, but it doesn't need to be made more
difficult by requiring use of what are fairly advanced programming
techniques.
Let's face it - most C newbies are scared of even the simplest
pointers.  It's not that uncommon to see a message saying "I've been
using C for 2 or 3 years, but I don't understand pointers." I've
even seen such a message here from an employed C programer!  If they
get scared by simple char & int pointers, imagine the sheer terror
involved in contemplating function pointers.  :)
Michael Stapleton of Graphic Bits.
 * AmyBW v2.10 *
... This tagline is encrypted
--- AdeptXBBS v1.11z (FREEWare/2)
---------------