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

[lyricalnanoha]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Shane Gough wrote:

> I'm glad there is some activity on the list at the moment, it gives me
> the chance to take a quick poll :)
>
> If you have the time would you please answer the following questions
> (section 1 is general, section 2 is specific to developers) and email
> back (to me personally if you don't want to bombard the list).
>
> Section 1 - General Questions
>
> 1.1 - Are you developing software to run under GEM (any version)? If
> No go to 1.2

Not at present, but I have.

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

(It was GEM/3+FreeGEM)

> 1.1.2 - What tools are you using?

(It was Turbo C++)

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

Everything I code is at least GPL-free, and a lot of it's BSD.  Because I 
really don't give.

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

Pretty much all of the above.

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

No

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

More or less.

> 1.3.1 - Why?

It's fairly familiar to me from using GS/OS.

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

I'd prolly make standard extensions for running 32-bit apps, handling 
Internet etc., but not required to run it.  I'd prolly also add 
multitasking.

> 1.4 - Please give me a free form comment about what you think of GEM.

For what it has been it has been great as.

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

I believe so.

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

(See below)

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

It would probably be best, at least, to have the older names available - 
I'd prolly do the opposite and alias the new names to the old ones, 
instead of aliasing the old names to the new.

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

Unknown.

> 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?

That would probably be a GEM to X Window translator library, which would 
be quite useful if it meant the same program could be built with GCC on 
DOS, Linux and the Atari ST.

-uso.