Mar 88 Letters
Volume Number: 4
Issue Number: 3
Column Tag: Letters
How Do You 'Float' a Window? 
By David E. Smith, Editor & Publisher, MacTutor
Rotating Bitmaps
Peter Adamson
Aix-en-Provence, France
Does anyone out there have an algorithm for rotating bitmaps? Can I use the
resource manager by more than one user to open and modify a single resource file over
AppleTalk? I have a classified ad program where each ad is a resource of type ‘CLAD’.
I want to be able to type ads simultaneously from several Macs connected to a single
file. Will calls like addResourse and unique I.D. work? I want to avoid getting into
trouble later on.
[For a good discussion of how to rotate bitmaps, see Bob Denny’s article in The
Best of MacTutor, Volume 1, on page 210 titled “PICT Rotation with Copybits” from
MacTutor, Vol. 1, No. 12. It is my understanding that the resource fork of a file cannot
be opened for writing except by a single application. Therefore, you cannot write to a
resource fork and be sharable by several Macs. So what you want to do cannot be done
with resources. -Ed]
Spreadsheet / Word Features
Steve Millina
In the January issue 1988 letter column, Cary Maraish asked how to do
spreadsheet-type windows fairly easily . I just did a one-page spreadsheet, and I found
that the list manager does a great job. Set up a rectangle for the cells, and feed LInit
the number of rows and columns, but FALSE for both scroll bars. Since this was a true
spreadsheet, actual text entry was through a text edit box at the top of the page, with
the text being transferred to the list with LSetCell only when the user indicated entry
was complete. For convenience, I used a dialog window so that the text edit stuff was
taken care of directly. You do need to bear in mind that the default text list definition
proc justifies left , so the programmer has to insert the appropriate number of spaces
in front of the numbers to make them line up.
If you really want entry to be made at the selection, you might try a Dialog
window with a grid of edit text boxes. (I tried something similar with a grid of stat
text boxes and it worked fine).
Since I’m already writing, I want to take issue with your evaluation of WriteNow.
I tried desperately to like WriteNow for many of the reasons you mention, but in the
end I went back to Word 3. The most important determinant was the fact that setting
line spacing was a slow and painful process, because I use lots of single spaced
paragraphs (for examples and quotations) in the midst of double spaced text and the
switch took forever. So does setting the ruler.
I even tried macros. At the time I didn’t have Quickkeys but I did have
Touch-n-Go, which is usually great. I tried to make it move the indent cursor. Fat
chance! WriteNow doesn’t look at the mousedown and mouseup events once it knows
what’s going on and the indent moves sort of randomly. I guess it reads the mouse
button directly but that is not the kind of programming you should commend
Word, on the other hand, may be mammoth, and may have any amount of code
wasted on oddities (such as outlining that only an IBM PC could love) but a lot of the
add-on touches are incredibly useful. Styles lead the list. Also high is the
command-= calculator that calculates whatever is selected and makes the answer
directly available for pasting. I know you can do the same thing with some calculator
DAs but the difference in speed and convenience is simply amazing. In a lot of respects,
Microsoft did what good programmers are supposed to do, it found out how its targeted
users work.
Good Software Design
S. C. Kim Hunter
Laguna Hills, CA
The MacTutor editorial in the Dec 87 issue of MacTutor addressed the issue of
multiple software tools and the Macintosh interface. Trying to put all the tools in one
application tends to defeat the object of MultiFinder. So we see the Mac programming
world working at cross purposes: Apple system folk trying to give us instant access to
lots of tools, and developers trying to cram all the tools into their specific rendition -
then groaning because they have to make more for somebody else’s tools.
Basically, all the things ever embodied in either hardware or software - at least
for the 25 years I’ve used computers - are stumbling blocks placed in the way of folk
that need to do a job. First you have to “configure” the hardware, then the software,
then read the manuals, then teach your hands to process keys in the right order and
with multiple combinations. Eventually you figure out how to make the computer do
what it was that you wanted to do when you decided to use a computer. You know what
you want - you have to figure out how to make the computer understand that.
I’ve talked to hundreds of folk using FileMaker - some of the dumbest you can
imagine regarding knowledge of computers. I am sure that anyone who reads MacTutor
would agree that someone who can’t figure out how to use FileMaker has got to be among
the dumbest of the dumb. FileMaker has the best user interface of any software I’ve
ever used, and Nashoba purposely works very hard to avoid making FileMaker too
complex, probably the main reason it isn’t, and may never be, a relational product -
hopefully, they’ll come up with a better way.
But these “dumb” people I talk to are not deadbeats. Most have very successful
businesses in their fields - doctors, lawyers, butchers, bakers, and bee keepers. They
know exactly what they want, but they don’t spend endless hours reading Inside
Macintosh or MacTutor. So they just see software and hardware as stumbling blocks in
the way of what they want to do. Isn’t this the essence of the Macintosh User Interface
Guidelines?
Those of us who do take the time to read Inside Macintosh and MacTutor have an
unwritten obligation to all those other folk. We can program the most superb software
you could ever imagine. But if folk can’t see how to make it do what they want, then it
is just a stumbling block in their way. At the basic level, all keystroke combinations
(more than one key down at the same time) are just stumbling blocks - UNLESS this
key combination is visible on the screen OR it is a common standard that works with
EVERY software package. So all those programmers that spend hours figuring out
esoteric key combinations for every possible function in their product are really
counterproductive to society - save for a few “power” users. [Right on! -Ed]
Even worse are the programmers that create key combinations that are totally
hidden from visible view - even the venerable MacPaint is guilty of this. And the
IBM-PC is the epitome of stumbling blocks - no need to belabor that point with
MacTutor readers.
I just delivered an MS-DOS program to a client. He called and said “I just put in
the disk, and ran the program, and it worked. That’s the first time that ever
happened.” So the Mac is having an impact beyond it’s scope.
But if the Mac programming world isn’t careful, we’re going to find ourselves,
like the Wall Street stock traders, back at square one. We’ve done a phenomenal job.
But now we have to face Gasseé’s Open Mac. He made it for us. It’s here (almost).
How are we going to face it? Was the day of the Mac II introduction a “black day”
for all the “dumb” folk? Are we going to emulate our PC compatriates by requiring
users to spend several days reading manual sections on “How to configure” the
software to match endless combinations of hardware? Will we do the same job on our
users as the Apple II folk have done? Is the MultiFinder just a poor excuse for UNIX
and will it degenerate to an access path to hundreds of “universal” tools called cc, xf,
vd, grep, or barf?
Gasseé opened the Mac. Odds are that the software industry will close it by
burying it’s interface in complexity. If you ever have to post a dialog that asks a user
to tell you anything about the hardware configuration your software is running on, you