In article <proto-E8666F.19002611012008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Walter Bushell <proto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <uce-19A8CC.07502506012008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Speaking as someone who's written software for more than a dozen
> > distinct platforms I'd have a tough time picking any point in time
where
> > the experience of developing for Macs was particularly worse than any
> > other platform. ...
>
> What about that horrid memory management where you had to know like
> before every call wether it moved memory or not????
In practice, it was virtually never an issue. The vast majority of the
time, the question of whether a given routine might move memory was
obviated by coding practices that made reasonable sense even without
that question.
To me, that's less of an issue than the fact that the stock API
do***entation for Windows and the API itself diverged so often that
do***enting those occasions provided fodder for a substantial monthly
column in one of the more popular developer journals.
Really, for any given platform, the worst experiences I had came from
the vendor directly rather than through the API. The more enjoyable the
coding experience, the more egregious the treatment seemed to be.
Microsoft published a virtual book describing all the things you needed
to do to be allowed to label your software as "Windows-compatible" and
it included some of the most gratuitous and arbitrary things I've ever
seen in a requirements do***ent.
Apple, in 1989, decided to treat its developers as a revenue source.
Drove large numbers of developers away just as Windows was becoming a
viable platform. They didn't come back until the iMac was announced.
Be - probably the second-most-enjoyable *coding* experience I've had -
just out and out lied to its developers and couldn't seem to hold onto a
strategy for more than 4 months.
|
