home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Experimental BBS Explossion 3
/
Experimental BBS Explossion III.iso
/
gus
/
sdkdigv7.zip
/
SDKV7N10.TXT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-12-30
|
6KB
|
126 lines
Apparently-To: john.smith@gravis.com
GUS Programmer's Digest Thu, 30 Dec 93 4:31 Volume 7: Issue 10
Today's Topics:
Forte response
Standard Info:
- Meta-info about the GUS can be found at the end of the Digest.
- Before you ask a question, please READ THE FAQ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 18:30:53 CST
From: chuth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Cornel H. Huth)
Subject: Re: Forte response
> > Just who are they trying to scare? Developers like me? Take a hike, bozos.
> First of all, CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is always welcome. Comments like this
> last sentence are neither appreciated or called for.
That's one line compared to several paragraphs. Heh. If you don't like it:
tough tities.
> Its still wrong because nobody brought the error to our attention. It
> is indeed flipped. The low nibble is the start fraction and the high
> nibble is the end fraction. We'll fix it also.
And you don't know already? It's been like that since the beta SDK and that
was a July 1992 publication. Do you even read/use your own SDK? I can't
imagine so because it is, for practical purposes, useless. And even your
above explanation is ambiguous. It's loop start fraction, not start fraction.
Two separate things.
> > should not have left Canada as is. I would feel very uneasy about using
> > any of the code in this SDK, to say the least. Actually, since I write
> As far as I know, there are no bugs in the SDK code. We use it for a lot
> of stuff and don't have any problems. I would encourage people to use
Famous last words. The previous SDK (2.01) was competely useless to anyone
not able to fix the numerous problems themselves. And this time 'round, not
a single mention of any changes/fixes. No wonder you have all those bugs in
there for so long -- no tracking.
> the code as is for as much as possible. I have spent countless hours
> working with people who subscribe to the 'not invented here' syndrome.
> 90% of those people could have used this code with absolutely no
I sense a bit of hostility here. I "invented" my own because yours was
so, need I say it again, utterly and completely useless.
> if you can't use the code directly, it is usually simple enough for
> somebody to extract the pieces they need for their application.
That's about all it is, a collection of pieces. Nothing holds it together.
> Obviously, the SDK does not have a lot of in-depth info on the patches
> or how to implement them. That is not its primary focus. Most developers
Obviously? Is that some sort of reason why it's not there? Not it's primary
focus? There's no focus. How's that? If you're going to do an SDK, why not
do a complete one? This 2.10 thing is something I'd expect from a rag-tag
organization.
> do not want to deal with that high of a level. If they do, MOST use
> Ultramid, so they don't need to worry about the implementation details.
Who cares what most do? And I'd hardly call documenting the patches (and
without numerous errors) "that high of a level". I'd call it a basic
requirement. And, to follow your arguement, if "most" programmed for SBOS,
would that mean there'd be an SDK on how to use SBOS and nothing else? (Silly
premise, silly arguement). And if most are using ultramid.exe, a rather large
and cumbersome TSR, then they are doing so because that's the only choice they
have. It also means that they pretty much have to write to ultramidi and then
write completely separate code to access other cards. Or are you under the
impression that GUS developers only write for the GUS? Not likely, unless one
likes to dismiss 99% of other users (the GUS having about 1% of the soundcard
market, tops).
> We will probably add more info/examples in future SDKs.
What have you been doing the past year and a half? Maybe you people have
been sitting on your high-horse too long. Come done in the trenches were
your real support will be drawn from. When, in this next year, there are
no new GUS-supported products out, relatively speaking, it's your job that
goes out the window, not mine. Then again, being Forte, you can always go
on to something else and just dump the GUS.
> I would like to thank Cornel for reviewing the doc. We NEED the feedback
> so that we can make fixes/additions to the SDK to make it more useable.
> If anybody else has any comments etc, please let us know. I can't promise
> that we will be able to provide everything you want, but we'll try.
Just who is responsible for this? I'd like to see some names and e-mail
addresses instead of this occasional, once-every-other-month pop-in by
> Forte Tech Support.
(ha!)
------------------------------
End of GUS Programmer's Digest V7 #10
*************************************
To post to tomorrow's digest: <gus-sdk@dsd.es.com>
To (un)subscribe or get help: <gus-sdk-request@dsd.es.com>
To contact a human (last resort): <gus-sdk-owner@dsd.es.com>
FTP sites: archive.epas.utoronto.ca /pub/pc/ultrasound
wuarchive.wustl.edu /systems/ibmpc/ultrasound
archive.orst.edu /pub/packages/gravis
theoris.rz.uni-konstanz.de /pub/sound/gus
nctuccca.edu.tw /PC/ultrasound
FTP mail server: mail-server@nike.rz.uni-konstanz.de
Hints:
- Get the FAQ from the FTP sites or the request server.
- Mail to <gus-sdk-request@dsd.es.com> for info about other GUS
related mailing lists (general use, musician's, etc.).