[GEM Development] An opportunity to ask some questions :)

[Owen Rudge]

Hi Shane,

> 1.1 - Are you developing software to run under GEM (any version)? If
> No go to 1.2

Not any more, alas. But when I was...

> 1.1.1 - What version of GEM are you developing for? (eg: OpenGEM, DR
> GEM/3, Atari GEM)

FreeGEM (mainly my own distribution - I probably stopped work on GEM 
before OpenGEM really came into being).

> 1.1.2 - What tools are you using?

I think I was using Borland C/C++ for 16-bit stuff, DJGPP for 32-bit stuff.

> 1.1.3 - Are they free? (as in 'really' free - released under a
> free-ware or open source license)

Some of my stuff is freeware, some of it open source.

> 1.1.4 - Where do you get your documentation? From the tools you use,
> from other developers, from google?

Mainly my reference would have been the docs on John's site.

> 1.2 - Do you *need* to use GEM? If No go to 1.3

No. In fact, I can't even run GEM without some kind of virtual machine 
these days. :(

> 1.3 - Do you enjoy using GEM? If No go to 1.4

I enjoy messing around with it. It's a bit limited for use as a serious 
platform these days.

> 1.3.1 - Why?

Nostalgia perhaps? I enjoy playing around with and writing software for 
old systems (GEM, DOS, Windows 3.x, etc), although these days I don't 
really have the time.

> 1.3.2 - What would you change about current GEM versions if you could?

32-bit GEM and vaguely decent multitasking would make things a lot easier.

> Section 2 - Specific Questions
> 
> 2.1 - Are there standard function names for the VDI/AES operations available?

The GEM Developer's Kit defined standard function names, but they could 
of course be redefined, since they're just wrappers around interrupts.

> 2.1.1 - Would you be upset if the names changed (ie: for VDI function
> #1 from v_opnwk to vdiOpenWorkstation)?

As long as there was a compatibility layer for old software, I wouldn't 
be against this.

> 2.1.2 - Would it be better to make the older names available even if
> different names were defined?

Yes.

> 2.2 - Are there any OO frameworks for GEM development available?

I started on something I called "GEM++" a while ago, which was to be 
some kind of C++ framework for GEM. It never went very far.

Not sure if there's much else around.

> 2.3 - Imagine this scenario: You can write applications for Linux that
> use the standard GEM API and the output can be viewed on any external
> device with the appropriate client program. Would this be useful for
> you?

Probably not useful, no. Interesting, maybe.

Cheers,

-- 
Owen Rudge
http://www.owenrudge.net/