INFO-ATARI16 Digest         Wed,  8 Nov 89       Volume 89 : Issue 621
 
Today's Topics:
         Congratulations (was: GEMDOS Extended Argument Spec)
                       GEMDOS extended arg spec
                            PD CAD request
                   Prolog 10, Common LISP (2 msgs)
                                  TT
                    TT vs 386 boxes and Apples...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 7 Nov 89 15:35:48 GMT
From: att!chinet!saj@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stephen Jacobs)
Subject: Congratulations (was: GEMDOS Extended Argument Spec)
 
Dalnefre' objects to Atari's statement on extended argument passing, and
gives some concrete reasons.  They are mostly the kind of situations that
can be expected to arise when a standard is imposed on previously chaotic
practices.  The objections to alternatives were discussed months ago.  The
new standard, if adhered to, seems to be adequate.  For now, while we may
have occasion to Pexec programs which never heard of the standard, it may
be desirable to have an option in such shells to inhibit aggressive behavior
like sorting the child's environment.  Time should take care of the rest.
    Now how about a standard for desk accessories to report what system
resources they hold (windows, memory blocks, file handles, menu slots, etc)?
                                         Steve J.
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 7 Nov 89 20:08:58 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!sbsvax!roeder@uunet.uu.net  (Edgar Roeder)
Subject: GEMDOS extended arg spec
 
In article <8911070803.AA12551@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
 MALCOLM@tower-vax.city-poly.ac.UK writes:
>
> Suppose I Pexec a child and want to pass an argv[1] of "PATH=bletch"
> (don't ask why!); suppose further that the *real* environment doesn't contain
> a PATH variable.  Now the child starts up with an environment something like:
 
Just to provide some realistic examples:
        - unix-like make programs sometimes need such arguments and they will
          also probably sort the environment to pass it over to their childs
        - C-preprocessors also like "-DMACRO=something"
        - less uses "-PM=promptspec"
 
> Malcolm Ray
> City of London Polytechnic Computer Service
>
> JANET:                malcolm@uk.ac.clp.tvax
> EARN/BitNet:  malcolm@tvax.clp.ac.uk
> Internet:     malcolm%tvax.clp.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
 
        - Edgar
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1989 15:58 EST
From: Greg Csullog <01659%AECLCR.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: PD CAD request
 
About two years ago, JIL CAD was released as PD. Our users' group has it.
It is a VERY sophisticated 2D CAD code. The catch of PD was that the
manual could be purchased for CDN $50. I used it once, some time ago but
I never returned because it was much more than I needed in a drawing pkg.
 
BTW, JIL stands for Jesus is Lord, no kidding!
 
Check out ACCUSOFT, BRE or CURRENT NOTES PD libraries to see if they have it.
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 8 Nov 89 11:23:50 GMT
From: otter!gjh@hplabs.hp.com  (Graham Higgins)
Subject: Prolog 10, Common LISP
 
/ otter:comp.sys.atari.st / rob@raksha.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) /  2:03
 am  Nov  7, 1989 /
In article <36500071@silver> jkain@silver.bacs.indiana.edu writes:
>
>/* ---------- "Prolog 10, Common LISP" ---------- */
>I address this especially to continental European ST users:
>
[message in German deleted]
>Well isn't *this* a fine how-do-you-do?  Even if we live in the U.S.
>perhaps we would like to know what you're saying.
[Spanish(?) reply deleted]
 
Even better, he is assuming Europe == Germany.  Think about the knee-jerk
potential here!
 
Anyway,
"I know Cambridge LISP and MProlog, but they are not what I am looking for.
 I am sorry that my German isn't very good, but since so may ST users are
 German, I believe that they don't want to always read English here."
>     David Megginson, Centre for Medieval Studies, Toronto
 
No cause for paranoia, meseems :-)
SR
----------
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 8 Nov 89 11:31:39 GMT
From: otter!gjh@hplabs.hp.com  (Graham Higgins)
Subject: Prolog 10, Common LISP
 
/ otter:comp.sys.atari.st / MEGGIN@vm.epas.utoronto.ca (David Megginson) / 12:16
 pm  Nov  4, 1989 /
 
> I address this especially to continental European ST users:
 
I reached up & caught this as it sped overhead :-)
 
> Auf Deutschland gibt es ein Prolog 10 oder ein Common LISP?
> Ich kenne Cambridge LISP und MProlog, aber sie sind nicht, wass ich
> suche.
 
I don't know of a Common Lisp, but StonyBrook Prolog looks like it's going to
port to the ST. I have done some preliminary work but am passing the job over
to Andrew Stevens at Edinburgh U. (he was planning to do it anyway).
 
You *could* try the Spectre GCR + Mac s/w route, but it could be an expensive
failure.
 
>     David Megginson, Centre for Medieval Studies, Toronto
 
Fascinating, I didn't know that Canada retained the British spelling of
"centre" -- or are you a Brit?
 
Sorry that this was posted, not mailed, I wasn't able to get mail to you last
time I tried --- are you sure that you exist? :-)
 
Graham
======
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Higgins                  |  Phone: (0272) 799910 x 24060
Hewlett-Packard Labs            |  gray@hpl.hp.co.uk
Bristol                         |  gray%hplb.uucp@ukc.ac.uk
U.K.                            |  gray@hplb.hpl.hp.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My opinions above are exactly that, mine and opinions.
------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 7 Nov 89 21:54:39 GMT
From: oahu!stephen@cs.ucla.edu  (Steve Whitney)
Subject: TT
 
In article <4344@blake.acs.washington.edu>, ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
 (Enartloc Nhoj) writes:
>
> The TT/x sounds like a great machine.  How many netters are going
> to bypass the TT/P and wait for the TT/x?  Basically, what I am
> saying is, can we really get all that excited about the TT/P?
>
> So it's going to cost more to get better graphics, better RAM,
> more slots etc... but, I am not necessarily looking for a "deal".
> Again, you _sometimes_ get what you pay for. At this point, I
> am willing to PAY for it.
 
Well, I for one DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY for a TT/X.  Not only that, but
I'm unlikely to need to plug _anything_ into that VME slot.  In fact, I'll
probably only use SCSI, parallel, serial, MIDI and SIMM ports.  That's it.
I need a faster machine with more memory, and I'd prefer not to throw
out my significant investment in software!  I APPRECIATE Atari's efforts to
produce a machine that I can afford (with a lot of scrimping and saving)!
 
THANK YOU Atari.  It appears to me that you've been listening to what people
want.  What have been the main complaints against the ST hardware?
 
        1) Memory not expandable:  Taken care of in TT
        2) ACSI instead of SCSI: Taken care of, means cheaper disk drives
        3) Only one serial port: Taken care of
        4) Not expandable enough: Hey, at least there's a slot, and it's
                                  a STANDARD!
 
What have been complaints about other companies' upgraded computers?
 
        1) Not compatible enough: TT has hardware registers in the same places
        2) Have to buy new peripherals: The ACSI port is still there!
                                        Don't know about monitor.
 
People want more slots.  Well, _I_ don't.  I can't afford everything everyone
might want.  I would be quite happy with a TT/P, thank you.
 
The same people who are asking for Ethernet are defending closed diskless
workstations sayin that "I don't need slots, my server has 'em.  People
at home won't have a server."  And people at home won't need Ethernet.
 
Most of the rest of the complaints are software-oriented.  Give Atari time.
They have said unofficially, with no commitment to a target release date
that there will eventually be a multitasking TOS.  Someday.  Not tomorrow.
Unix should be available sooner.
 
That's it.  I had to blow off some steam after reading 30 '386 commercials.
 
 
Steve Whitney   "It's never _really_ the last minute"       (())_-_(())
UCLA Comp. Sci. Grad. Student                                | (* *) |
Internet: stephen@cs.ucla.edu              UCLA Bruin-->    ?  \_@_/  ?
GEnie:    S.WHITNEY                                           `-----'
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 7 Nov 89 19:03:56 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!pcsbst!me@uunet.uu.net  (Michael Elbel)
Subject: TT vs 386 boxes and Apples...
 
   >Do refer to the TT as nonstandard?
   >Is UNIX not a standard?!?! What about all the ST programs there are??
 
   Yes, the TT is non-standard.  While it has a VME card slot, the rest of
   the system is non-standard.  Atari Corp would have to obtain a VERY large
   market share before it could be considered a "standard".. this is not going
   to happen.   UNIX _is_ a standard, but Atari has already announced that UNIX
   will _not_ be shipped with the first TTs.  With their track record of
   "followup", I would not call a promise of UNIX a "standard".
 
   ST programs are by definition "non-standard" because they run on the
   "non-standard" ST  (in the same way Amiga is "non-standard" and now CP/M
   and Apple II have become).
 
Ah, come on, gimme a break ! I'm sick of reading statements like these.
What the hell is a standard concerning computers ? Does it have to be MSDOS
compatible to be standard? Or what ?
 
I don't buy a computer because zillions of other people have a compatible
model, or because I can connect it to my microwave oven and the video recorder
at the same time using this wonderful extension card; I buy it because I want
to do certain things with it. So, I need hardware that provides me with the
performance and software that does the job, at the lowest possible price.
 
For example, if I have to calculate the expansion of a supernova I propably
won't use a PC, even if I could run hundrets of great word processors on
the same machine just because my simulation would take some years then.
 
On the other hand, if I don't need a specific program, but just want to do
text and programming and playing, I don't care if the hardware is compatible
to the rest of the world if I get good programs for the job.
 
I'm writing this article on a PCS workstation. You propably have never heard
of us and will never see one of our machines outside europe simply because
we are to small and unimportant in the US to sell anything there.
So my machine is really non-standard in your terms.
 
But it has one of the fastest microprocessors you can get these days (No, sorry
a MIPS processor doesn't run MSDOS without emulation, you even can't plug in
these nifty PC cards 'cause we have no PC or AT bus), a nice big 70 HZ graphics
display and I have all applications available I need to port X-Servers, debug
them, write documentation, read news and so on.
 
What I want to say is: If you don't like the features of your ST any longer
and don't like the TT 'cause you "just" can run all thep properly written
ST software, go ahead, buy something "standard" like a no-name 386, or, if you
have the money a Mac II and start whining about these machines.
 
You'll always have problems with the computer you have, be it too much
money you have to spend, or no hardware support and so on.
 
Michael
--
Michael Elbel - me@dude.PCS.COM for the World, me@dude.PCS.DE for Europe
 
------------------------------
 
End of INFO-ATARI16 Digest V89 Issue #621
*****************************************
=========================================================================