Linked by Kroc on Thu 24th Aug 2006 20:26 UTC
Permalink for comment 155812
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-22
You needed 2 PCs and a standard $10 null modem. You didn't need Windows, although most people used it on the coding PC.
The need for two PCs was because of the debugging. Any time you hit a breakpoint in the debugger, it would stop the entire OS. Doing this made debugging multithreaded code MUCH easier. Also, putting the debugger on a seperate machine meant your code wasn't trashing the debugger as it ran. It was an expense, but, you didn't need anything fast for the 2nd machine. I just used my old 286 as the debugging machine.
GEOS wasn't hard to develop for at all. The APIs were VERY nice actually. The UI in particular was so much easier to develop for than any other UI toolkit. The myth of GEOS being hard to develop for was created by people who spent a lot of time learning MFC and didn't want to admit that it wasn't very good.
As for my basis of comparison there, I spent a summer trying to learn Windows coding with Visual C++ 1.0, not really making any progress. I then got the GEOS SDK, and within a few weeks impressed Geoworks enough to get an offer for an internship the following summer.
I'm still so spoiled by the ease of the GEOS APIs that I won't go near Win32/MFC.