In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes ><SNIP> >>The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must >>be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it >>discourages development. >We never said they have to be identical just 'coherent'. Code that works >on all platforms should be common and code that is specific need not. >The thing is that all calls to platform specific code should be handled >by the other platforms without a crash and the whole O/S should maintain >integrity. This can only be done if the code is controlled and that is >the post the Wolfgang has taken on. We all want development we also want >it to work. There seems to be some confusion around SMSQ/E's 'core' and its 'flavours'. It seems to me that Wolfgang has taken on the onerous task of maintaining the integrity of SMSQ/E so that it remains consistent and coherent, and that all users - irrespective of platform - get access to all the 'new' features. So the 'core' remains robust and crash-proof on all platforms, whilst the 'flavours' can take advantage of the platform's own features. Hence SMSQ/E - with any new official version - will run on my Black Box QL + Gold Card, without any problems. Yet certain features will not be avialable because the platform simply doesn't support them. The same new official version of SMSQ/E will run on my Pentium PC with QPC2 v3, without any problems. Yet will be able to take advantage of certain new features. ... and so on for various hardware/software combinations. Perhaps this warrants a full article in QL Today, and a brief posting on this list. -- Malcolm Cadman
