24-Apr-2024 03:17 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 86 items in your selection (but only 36 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 86]
[News] New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works!ANN.lu
Posted on 24-Apr-2002 16:18 GMT by P Ericson86 comments
View flat
View list
In a recent interview with Hyperion Software, we're told that Olaf "Olsen" Barthel is working on new ROM Kernal Reference Manuals for AmigaOS 4.0! [The "RKRM" books are the official and prime development documentation/tutorial for AmigaOS developers] As some readers of Amiga Network News may already know, Mr Barthel has previously compiled the Amiga Developer's CD.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 51 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 25-Apr-2002 16:05 GMT
What a heck if somebody would create software like Centura/SqlWindows on Amiga ... even that would be major milestone.
Creating software for Windoze is so damn easy compared to tools available on Amiga! :(
What we need is free (or almost free) tool to create new software for the platform! StormC is way too expensive what it can provide! :(
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 52 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by James Whelan on 25-Apr-2002 16:31 GMT
Isn't this great? We're debating what format the new Amiga OS Rom Kernal Manuals should be in. If you'd told me this a few years ago I'd have probably laughed at you. I cannot wait for OS 4.0
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 53 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Olaf Barthel on 25-Apr-2002 16:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 49 (Jack Perry):
> I don't see what all the fuss is about, PDF vs. HTML vs. CHTML vs. whatever.
> Why is everyone acting like Olaf has to pick just one??? A half-decent word
> processor will export to PDF and HTML, I reckon CHTML wouldn't be too bad,
> and surely it wouldn't take a very difficuly program to translate those to
> AmigaGuide or other formats. (...said someone who hasn't written an Amiga
> program in a looooong time.)
Decent word processor? I'm using LaTeX2e, which may not be the best choice
(getting the line breaks right was a nightmare, especially for the RKM
Libs). But looking back at how this used to be done in Commodore's days,
I guess we're all better off with a portable format for the manuscript. The
original text was set in troff format, and the illustrations were created in
a mix of old PageStream and Professional Page -- try to find working versions
of these today!
As for AmigaGuide, I don't think that this is really an option. It doesn't
scale very well, and the most simplistic HTML viewer will run rings around
it in terms of speed and features.
> [..]
> My only request: PLEASE GOD don't make the HTML file one long-a$$ document as
> H&P did with the AmigaDOS manual. My Amiga 1200 didn't have enough Chip RAM
> for it; it was slow as heck to load and render, and completely forfeited the
> biggest advantage of HTML docs IMHO.
I understand that these manuals were scanned and then set in PageMaker, whose
html output left much to be desired. Sometimes you don't have much of a choice
other than to accept whatever the software offers you :(
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 54 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Olaf Barthel on 25-Apr-2002 16:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 52 (James Whelan):
> Isn't this great? We're debating what format the new Amiga OS Rom Kernal
> Manuals should be in. If you'd told me this a few years ago I'd have probably
> laughed at you.
Well... there is still work to be done. Just because the manuscripts are in
printable form again it doesn't mean that the format will qualify for all sorts
of output file formats. And there is still the issue of updating the contents.
So far all I did was to reproduce the RKM manuscripts as closely to the original
printing.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 55 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Mak73 on 25-Apr-2002 17:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (hweight):
The print version is more better ;)
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 56 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 25-Apr-2002 17:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (Olaf Barthel):
LaTeX2e? Good stuff! I'm intrigued though when you say you're
having problems with getting the line breaks right. In what way
are you having trouble?
In my experience, it's best not to fight TeX on such matters.
After all, you're using TeX to take away the problems of
typsetting.
On the other hand, line breaks in things like code listings are
supremely important. Are you using the latest Listings
environment? v1.0 was released just a few weeks ago if you hadn't
noticed and may include some much needed functionality you're
currently missing.
Seeing as you're coding the doc in TeX, how about releasing the
DVI files? Discussion about formats becomes moot then.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 57 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Olaf Barthel on 25-Apr-2002 18:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 56 (Anonymous):
> LaTeX2e? Good stuff! I'm intrigued though when you say you're
> having problems with getting the line breaks right. In what way
> are you having trouble?
Bloody long names such as BltMaskBitMapRastPort() which LaTeX2e
doesn't know how to break down into manageable units. While TeX
can hyphenate supercallifragilisticexpialidocious without breaking
a sweat, Amiga function names don't go down very well. Type changes
are a problem, too, especially in tables and lists. The lines become
too narrow to hyphenate or squeeze the glue to meet TeX's own standards.
> In my experience, it's best not to fight TeX on such matters.
> After all, you're using TeX to take away the problems of
> typsetting.
I know. If only TeX knew...
> On the other hand, line breaks in things like code listings are
> supremely important. Are you using the latest Listings
> environment? v1.0 was released just a few weeks ago if you hadn't
> noticed and may include some much needed functionality you're
> currently missing.
I had little luck compiling a working set of LaTeX2e macro files.
I even went so far as to download the latest LaTeX2e distribution
from CTAN, but it didn't help much :(
> Seeing as you're coding the doc in TeX, how about releasing the
> DVI files? Discussion about formats becomes moot then.
I am not "coding" the documentation in TeX ;) The original author
of the RKM Devs (Marc Ricci) did that. Consequently, you couldn't
rebuild the manual without using his custom macro files (which
were built on top of plain TeX). Releasing the DVI files along with
the documentation in other formats might be a good idea. But I'm not
so sure if it will be released in this form.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 58 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by SlimJim on 25-Apr-2002 18:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (Olaf Barthel):
Yes LaTeX2e is nice and probably a wise choice..
A question from one that have never read a kernel manual... I thought those
manuals were very old and dated? Now that AOS4 is moving not only towards updates
but on a completely new processor... How much use are the old manuals then?
Olaf said one of them was >1000 pages. Is all info still useable in the new system?
I would have thought, in my ignorance, that the major work-part was to remove heaps
of old stuff to update or even write a lot from scratch?
.
SlimJim
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 59 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Olaf Barthel on 25-Apr-2002 18:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 58 (SlimJim):
> [..]
> A question from one that have never read a kernel manual... I thought those
> manuals were very old and dated?
Yes and no. Yes, they are now ten years old (the RKM Libs shipped when the
first Kickstart 3.0 test releases were made available to developers). No,
most of the documentation covers features that did not change in all these
years. The manuscripts certainly do not cover the features introduced in
3.0 and 3.1. You will have to look that up in the AmigaMail Volume 2 text.
And some of the information was never really updated at all. For example,
the graphics.library documentation is almost identical to the RKM text of the
AmigaOS 1.3 volumes (published in 1987/1988).
> Now that AOS4 is moving not only towards updates but on a completely new
> processor... How much use are the old manuals then?
My best guess is that technically, 60-75% will still be accurate. The
remaining 40-25% are outdated either because they have been outdated
since Kickstart 3.0 was released, or because the underlying hardware
base will be different/new APIs will be introduced.
> Olaf said one of them was >1000 pages. Is all info still useable in the
> new system? I would have thought, in my ignorance, that the major work-part
> was to remove heaps of old stuff to update or even write a lot from scratch?
It's hard to get rid of APIs and data structures, even if you are replacing
or updating old code. For example, the icon.library that shipped with the 3.5
and 3.9 updates was rewritten from scratch. Yet the documentation in the RKM
Libs could still be used to write software to use it.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 60 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by .jon on 25-Apr-2002 20:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Elwood):
Elwood: "Olaf, add the Autodocs in Amigaguide this time."
NO WAY !!!
Get yourself a decent XRef Utility from Aminet (I recommend XRef_v1.1.lha) and do
them yourself. (It comes as shared lib, also for ARexx, and creates binary xrefs)
One of the most important things of a growing system is Document Prganization and
search in them. AmigaOS would do better if it would implkement such a feature.
(And please: No HTML. Make it extended Texinfo or XML, please. This way we can keep our
easy to use AmigaGuides for textual docs. And when you (Hyperion) are at it: Please
rework Amigaguide also, but save us from directories full of files (like HTML))
.jon
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 61 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by .jon on 25-Apr-2002 21:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 ([JC]):
>> But please ignore the suggestion to change the autodoc format into whatever
>> icrofilth uses, the current Amiga autodoc format is fine."
> You're a typical short-sighted Amiga wanker who needs to die.
>
> I have developed for quite a few years on AmigaOS (in 68k assembler), and yes,
> AmigaGuide was good in it's day, but something better for modern systems is needed.
> Have you ever even used MSDN ? 0r CHTML based SDK references ? No ? Then shut up.
>
> AmigaGuide does not have embedded pictures. It does not have a good search function.
> It does not have support for web/file links. There are many things it does not have
> that modern formats like CHTML and PDF do.
>
> As for PDF, well PDF is cumbersome for development docs, since as this is pretty
> much what Apple provide thier SDK docs as. I prefer CHTML or plain old HTML -
> CHTML just has the advantage of being a compound file with an index that is easily
> searchable.
No, the idiot is *YOU* !
It is clear, that you have no real insight about good developer documentation formats.
To recommend HTML as a reference to any API is plain silly. I will tell you why:
a) HTML is NOT searchable
In order to do a search on HTML you need either
a) complicated scripts
or
b) full-text-search engine (add a web-server)
or
c) a special browser (which makes no sense, since a browser is only
a frontend, you still need a machinery to index the HTML docs.
b) HTML adds much too much overhead
c) HTML is cluttered up on many many files, making indexing even more difficult,
even if newer HTML revisions offer indexing support up to some point.
d) HTML will lead to ECMAScript and Java and whatever in the API reference, somthing
desirable, if used with a clue, but most likely it will be used clueless.
PDF is NO CHOICE AT ALL ! The only thing PDF is good for is for printing. Period.
I have a strong feeling you have never used anything like LaTeX (or Texinfo) nor do you
know anything about the benefits of easily to index documents (such as the Autodocs), when
indexed with binary (fast) indizies through a shared library (which is so nice, since I can
lookup any Autodoc (and Include, UNIX MAN and any AmigaGuide) in my editor as well
as have auto-completion from these indizies.
All you did in your comment was to insult a "purist" (who usually do quite good programming
in my experience...) and showed you have absolutely no clue.
If you _would_ have a clue you would have proposed some low-level document-format (as is the
Autodoc or Texinfo) since you then would know, that these can be converted into
a) HTML
b) Postscript
c) PDF
e) DVI
f) GNU Info
g) Amigaguide
h) several other Linux/UNIX formats
and are (one of the most important things for _any_ reference) easily indexable/searchable.
But you just have no clue.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 62 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by .jon on 25-Apr-2002 21:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (Anonymous):
> A better autodoc format wouldn't be such a bad idea. It's hard enough to
I agree.
> compile the text from the autodocs and get the cross-references right. We
Please !!! Do have a look at Aminet:dev/misc/xref_v1.1.lha !!!
I use it since years and it is (though a bit wired sometimes) excellent.
There is also a review of it on Aminet. It was written by Stefan Ruppert
(HTDS Datatypes, MAN Datatype, dnode-handler)
> don't have the source code to the tools this is done with, so a better
Well, just ask Stefan ?! It is much more powerful than the C= adoc utilities.
It scans all autodocs, includes (even other Amigaguides and UNIX MAN) references them
(imagine, you get a reference of all the defines and much much more). It makes all the
devdocs fully searchable, and comes as a shared library and the xrefs are binaries, making
them very quick.
> solution for knitting the autodocs into a more manageable format would
> be called for.
What about some puristic XML definition ? That would have some major advantages, since XML
is very easy to translate to other formats and utilities exist 'en masse' to do so.
(Not so many, though, which read external stylesheets and DTD, but sure will come)
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 63 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 25-Apr-2002 21:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 61 (.jon):
Bet you feel like an idiot when someone tells you that CHTML is a single file representation for multiple HTML files, image files, etc, with indexing supplied?
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 64 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by .jon on 25-Apr-2002 21:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 63 (Anonymous):
No, I do not feel like an idiot if someone tells me, that CHTML is a a single file.
Fact is, that in -> none <- of my posts I mentioned CHTML. I was talking about
-> HTML <-
Read again and then Go figure(tm).
Besides: As I know CHTML is a Microsoft invention. At least I did not use it
anywhere else besides on Windows.
To use it commercially (HAHAHA for a concurrent product !!) would most likely
mean to pay expensive licenses to deliver a little market with CHTML.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 65 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by tinman on 25-Apr-2002 21:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 61 (.jon):
> In order to do a search on HTML you need either
d) AmigaDOS "search" command and some simple DOS script or some grep-like tool
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 66 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 25-Apr-2002 22:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 57 (Olaf Barthel):
RE: Hyphenation
The TeX hyphenation algorithm isn't too hot on function
names. I know, I'm having those problems too.
However, it is possible to give TeX hints about what
it can hyphenate and where in the word it should place
the line breaks. Check out the "\hyphenation" command.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 67 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by sutro on 26-Apr-2002 01:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (Daniel Allsopp):
:
Yeah, I have been using VC++ and MSDN for a couple of years now, and I'll stick with what I've said all along, that the VC++ environment is simply THE best for development!! Period! Love them or hate them, Microsoft make some good software (apart from their OS). Visual Studio, Microsoft Office... to name two!
:
Obviously you 've never programmed in Java before since Visual Studio is simply no match for the heavyweights in Java Development like JBuilder, Visualage and Forte.
As for the CHM help system it suxx completely. Pure HTML is a joy to use and easy to maintain, is portable and integrates seamlessly with the excellent Javadoc system.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 68 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Olaf Barthel on 26-Apr-2002 04:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 66 (Anonymous):
> The TeX hyphenation algorithm isn't too hot on function
> names. I know, I'm having those problems too.
>
> However, it is possible to give TeX hints about what
> it can hyphenate and where in the word it should place
> the line breaks. Check out the "\hyphenation" command.
I am familiar with this approach (this is not the first manual I've
either written or set in TeX ;) However, I felt that function names
should appear in print exactly as they are used in software development.
That sometimes makes it inconvenient to resort to hyphenation, and
you'll end up with lines in which two function names, one plain word and
altogether too much white space show up. TeX is complaining about this
all the time. Yet, there doesn't seem to be much of an alternative.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 69 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Kamel Biskri on 26-Apr-2002 08:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
Hi Mr Hermans,
It will be a good idea! any plans to put a pre-order in place for the CD and printed book so you'll know how many to print and knows how many CD to burn.
Can I have the first printed version then :)
Regards
Kamel
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 70 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 26-Apr-2002 10:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 69 (Kamel Biskri):
Let's have Olaf finish his work first.
There's still so much to do, so many years of neglect to correct.
I hope everybody realises that with a very limited budget, we can only do so much.
It's only thanks to the hard work of dedicated developers like Olaf that we can get this far in the first place.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 71 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Thomas Frieden on 26-Apr-2002 11:26 GMT
[ABUSE]
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 72 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by [JC] on 26-Apr-2002 11:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 64 (.jon):
> No, the idiot is *YOU* !
>
> It is clear, that you have no real insight about good developer documentation > formats.
Yeah of course i'm an idiot cos I'm not an Amiga purist. I'm just an idiot who happens to have worked on *3* commercial Amiga game titles for a company still releasing Amiga games. Yeah. And on more platforms than just Amiga and PC. I think I have a little insight into developer documentation.
Admit it, you're against CHTML and the idea of it just because it's a Microsoft idea. What a stupid shortsighted view to take. Notice also I didnt say CHTML, i said an OPEN VARIANT of it (which would be fairly easy to create).
You've also plainly never used it by saying it's hard to maintain, because it's no more difficult to maintain than HTML (or AmigaGuide for that matter). All you do, is make up your docs as you would HTML, with an index file, and then run it through a little tool that compiles it together. At least with HTML, you get editors and things like Doxygen.
Now to answer your points on HTML:
> a) HTML is NOT searchable
That is where CHTML expands on it, by making a search index part of it.
> b) HTML adds much too much overhead
CHTML is compressed so not much overhead there. Processor wise, i'm sure a PPC G3 can handle a little text based HTML with the odd image.
> c) HTML is cluttered up on many many files, making indexing even more
> difficult,
CHTML is a compound file. And before you whine that you can't change it, they can be decompiled back into source HTML.
> d) HTML will lead to ECMAScript and Java and whatever in the API reference,
> somthing desirable, if used with a clue, but most likely it will be used
> clueless.
I've not seen a HTML or CHTML API reference yet use anything beyond plain HTML and CSS.
> PDF is NO CHOICE AT ALL ! The only thing PDF is good for is for printing.
> Period.
I will agree with you there. Most of Apple's developer docs come as PDF, and it's a pain.
You then say in a later post:
> To use it commercially (HAHAHA for a concurrent product !!) would most likely
> mean to pay expensive licenses to deliver a little market with CHTML.
Oh, and of course, it's totally impossible to create something similar and free, isn't it. Oh yes, completely impossible... oh, wait.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 73 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 26-Apr-2002 12:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 72 ([JC]):
Not related to what you are discussing. Is CHTML as strict as XHTML? I'd prefer something that doesn't allow a thousand and one different variants (slightly exaggerated :) of every tag ..
/Björn
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 74 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Lennart Fridén on 26-Apr-2002 13:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
Could be an option.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 75 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 26-Apr-2002 13:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 71 (Thomas Frieden):
Just for the record, that's not Thomas Frieden of Hyperion posting but some idiot MorphOS fan who apparently also went to the trouble of setting up a website with a distorted picture of me.
It seems the frustration is mounting.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 76 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by lalala on 26-Apr-2002 14:00 GMT
it's KERNEL, not KERNAL. The latter was the C64 ROM, Kermit.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 77 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Remco Komduur on 26-Apr-2002 16:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (Anonymous):
Then you should try Emperor! That is a good development environment for Reaction.
I'm glad about the new manuals that are in the works!
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 78 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Jane on 26-Apr-2002 19:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 75 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
Isn't your view a little bit biased? I think it was actually a really funny picture.
Ben "the laywer, the PR guy, the OS4 Project Manager (AllInWonder)" Hermans like I always imagined him :)
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 79 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by .jon on 26-Apr-2002 23:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 65 (tinman):
Nice to see you are satisfied with such little tools and no power.
(Or did you inted to write a script ? Then read my list again)
/me wonders how someone can compare a simple grep to an indexed
database of nodes...
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 80 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by AmiTroll on 27-Apr-2002 02:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (José):
>Hugh? Are you sure where did you got that?
Heh! It's true. Where did i got it isn't important. Amigados has had some changes made to it. I won't say more because you will only say i'm lieing or just flame me as some lamer who has no clue about what he's talking about. It's been said already by Hyperion that the filesystem and dos have had changes. So take it or leave it. The RKRM's and autodocs will be out within a couple months and everyone can see. No matter what format they are in. :)
And btw, i wouldn't much care if they were done in ASCII. Yeah, plain old simple and reliable ASCII. I kind of prefer it. Scary aint it? To actually have to READ something and LEARN it so you cant just click n copy code out of the manual. But then i happen to like reading books too and they are all done in plain ASCII ;). Must be hell never useing ones brain. Olaf, keep it simple for us please. About the only thing wrong with the amigaguide format is how Multiview adds codes for bold and italics when saving the page out as a text file. And those can be stripped off quick enough. Please dont do 50 formats. Please don't put it into some non-portable or hard to translate format. Keep it simple for us and if someone wants to copy it to some other format later on they can. I dont need a web browser to read text. I dont need spiffy animations and the latest and greatest PDF viewer to read simple and straightforward autodocs. All i want is the basic text so, please get the fancy schmancy buttons and ultra hyperlinks the hell away from me. I want to read the text not play some damned mouse driven game. :)
GRUNT
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 81 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by AmiTroll on 27-Apr-2002 02:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 75 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
>Just for the record, that's not Thomas Frieden of Hyperion posting but some idiot MorphOS fan who apparently also went to the trouble of setting up a website with a distorted picture of me.
I would love to see this page just for something to laugh at. Can you give us the URL? :)
>It seems the frustration is mounting.
Seems so. I can picture it now, a guy sitting at his desk, surrounded by the dim blue glow of his monitor, typeing away madly at the keyboard with little beads of sweat forming on his twitching brow while murmering to himself, "This page will surely destroy the evil Hyperion monopoly". (I should write novels) :)
Keep up the great work. :)
GRUNT
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 82 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Apr-2002 16:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 81 (AmiTroll):
Remind me. What does Herman's do apart from post FUD on ANN.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 83 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Iggy Drougge on 29-Apr-2002 21:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 80 (AmiTroll):
Can you name any single text format which can't be converted to plain ASCII? I can't.
No matter what format (save print) the RKRMs may be delivered in, you can have all the ASCII you want, so the actual format of delivery should be of no consequence to you.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 84 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by d2 on 30-Apr-2002 09:51 GMT
So when it will avaible and how much i will must pay for it?
[d2].
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 85 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by Amigan Software on 01-May-2002 03:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 ([JC]):
>> But please ignore the suggestion to change the autodoc format into whatever
>> Microfilth uses, the current Amiga autodoc format is fine.
>You're a typical short-sighted Amiga wanker who needs to die.
Huh? I make a polite suggestion to Mr Barthel and get flamed by a lamer <sigh>
>I have developed for quite a few years on AmigaOS (in 68k assembler), and yes, AmigaGuide was good in it's day, but something better for modern systems is needed. Have you ever even used MSDN ? 0r CHTML based SDK references ? No ? Then shut up.
AmigaGuide is still as good as it ever was of course. In fact I have used Visual C++ with the MSDN docs, to do commercial software. And the MSDN docs are not much good, I would prefer the Amiga-style formatting. I put it to you that obviously YOU have not done much programming or you would know what you are talking about.
>AmigaGuide does not have embedded pictures. It does not have a good search function. It does not have support for web/file links. There are many things it does not have that modern formats like CHTML and PDF do.
Well it doesn't have background music and parallax scrolling either does it!! These sorts of things are not useful for technical documentation. Sorry if it's not pretty enough for you :-) Quite frankly I would not want to load up an entire browser just to quickly check something. And you need to more clearly define "modern". AmigaGuide is fairly modern, it has been updated in minor ways since it was released. And of course, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I would have preferred to email this directly to "CJ", to save you all the bother of reading it, but he's too cowardly to include his email address.
New AmigaOS 4.0 ROM Kernal Reference Manuals in the works! : Comment 86 of 86ANN.lu
Posted by [JC] on 07-May-2002 22:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 85 (Amigan Software):
>>> But please ignore the suggestion to change the autodoc format into whatever
>>> Microfilth uses, the current Amiga autodoc format is fine.
>
>>You're a typical short-sighted Amiga wanker who needs to die.
>
>Huh? I make a polite suggestion to Mr Barthel and get flamed by a lamer <sigh>
Pff.
>I have developed for quite a few years on AmigaOS (in 68k assembler), and yes, AmigaGuide was good in it's day, but something better for modern systems is needed. Have you ever even used MSDN ? 0r CHTML based SDK references ? No ? Then shut up.
> AmigaGuide is still as good as it ever was of course.
But there's now better.
> In fact I have used Visual C++ with the MSDN docs, to do commercial software.
> And the MSDN docs are not much good, I would prefer the Amiga-style
> formatting.
Of course they're no good. They're Microsoft, and you're a rabid Amiga fan.
> I put it to you that obviously YOU have not done much programming or you
> would know what you are talking about.
Let's see. I work for e.p.i.c interactive. I did the conversion work for SimonII, Feeble, Knights and Merchants, a bit of Earth 2150 and other things in the works. I think that qualifies me as having done quite a bit of programming.
> Well it doesn't have background music and parallax scrolling either does it!! > These sorts of things are not useful for technical documentation.
Search isn't good for documentation ? Ability to display flow/state diagrams isn't good for documentation ? A quick link that says "For the latest updates to this SDK, go to http://blah.foo.com" isn't good for documentation ?
> Sorry if it's not pretty enough for you :-) Quite frankly I would not want to > load up an entire browser just to quickly check something.
CHTML isn't an entire browser, it just uses a HTML render engine, in Windows case it uses IE's but there's no reason you couldn't display it with ANY render engine.
> I would have preferred to email this directly to "CJ", to save you all the
> bother of reading it, but he's too cowardly to include his email address.
Because I work for e.p.i.c, I don't want people harrasing me in person, or campaigning we release some title on the Amiga so that 50 people can buy it, etc.
Anonymous, there are 86 items in your selection (but only 36 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 86]
Back to Top