@broadblues

Quote:

In which API exactly? there is excactly one function in intuition that starts with New and that is NewObject() which is a wrapper arround OM_NEW

Some examples would be here. I didn't isolate these to just Intuition.

dos.library/CreateNewProc
icon.library/GetDiskObjectNew

Quote:

Actually I tell a lie on second glance there is NewModifyProp() pssobly the only function in the my entire autodocs that confirms to your idea of a replacement function.

And this is what I was thinking of from Intuition. There aren't many but I do recall seeing them in the 1.3 days. I must have a long memory apart from details. When taglists were brought in they really helped to stop functions becoming obsolete and instead brought in a method of being able to extend function parameters or even replace them. Just at the cost of doubling the data. Great idea though, I thought.

Quote:

/me sticks tongue out and points at Hypex ---> he started it!

Yes I started it. Haha!

Last edited by Hypex on 17-Feb-2019 at 04:47 PM.

From object point-of-view, the biggest differences I see between C and C++ are:

With f.ex. member functions, in C++ you do:
obj->DoSomething(args);

instead of:
obj->DoSomething(obj, args);

(In other words, "this" pointer is automatically silently passed in C++)

Instead of:
NewTexture(int x, int y);
and
NewTextureFromFile(FILE *f);

in C++, you can have:
NewTexture(int x, int y);
and
NewTexture(FILE *f);

Yes, C++ has the exact same restriction as C: There can't be different function definitions with same name in the binary. In source code, however, you can. Behind the scenes, C++ compiler appends seemingly cryptic chars to function name, based on prototype. And it does same for the function calls. This isn't quite standardized, and different compilers might name the functions differently.

Being able to make some elements of class private. Basically this only makes the elements "a little harder to access" (from security point of view), but the main point is, it's made a LOT harder to access them accidentally, when you shouldn't.

And while they're called "private", one issue is, if you change them, you usually break binary compatibility with all code that uses even only the "public" parts.

Just like with C, it's often a good strategy to simply have a pointer to the "really private parts" within the struct. And if using just a normal pointer, you can keep the contents "100% private" from outside users, and not even tell them about the contents.Then you can change the contents at will, without fears of breaking binary compatibility.

@Jupp3

I would like to add that from an object point of view, the biggest difference is that C++ allows you to use operators to act on objects, which is not possible in C. This can make using the objects more straightforward.

This has the flip side that you can no longer look at the code and have a gut feeling about what it does in terms of efficiency. Seemingly innocent pointer access or addition may no longer be a rather basic operation with C++, it may instead be a very expensive operation that can do essentially anything, including accessing a file or open a connection over the network.

@Jupp3

Quote:

With f.ex. member functions, in C++ you do: obj->DoSomething(args); instead of: obj->DoSomething(obj, args); (In other words, "this" pointer is automatically silently passed in C++)

Yes, I think this is right, and it always seems clunky to me. The leading "obj->" in "obj->DoSomething(obj, args)" is just syntactic sugar to make it look OO when it's really not. Having a function pointer inside a struct only gets us half way there; if the function doesn't "know" anything about the struct in which it is contained without explictly passing in a pointer, then it's not worth much.

Last edited by bison on 19-Feb-2019 at 09:38 PM.
Last edited by bison on 18-Feb-2019 at 05:41 PM.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@bison

Semantics. No, really.

@thread

Apologies for on-topic post.

given the story includes:
Quote:
Quote:

Currently, the lawyers of both sides are busy with the matter

and given in prior postings I mentioned that "etal" meant "and others",
I feel this is relevant for this thread.

Picasso96: Cloanto comments on allegations by Jens Schönfeld

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@number6
Interesting. Is Cloanto a lawsuit target now that it looks like they have cash? Hyperion used the P96 sources and likely incorporated them in AmigaOS 4 but all they have to show for it is a pile of debt which is lawsuit proof. Maybe Jens thinks Cloanto is going to end up with a pile of cash from AmigaOS 3.1.4 too.

@matthey

Honestly, it's late and I don't see the english translation coming until tomorrow.
I can't tell if this refers to Jens' and Cloanto's attorneys or Hyperion and Cloanto's attorneys
from this.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@number6:

It refers to Jens' and Cloanto's lawyers, as in: "they're writing each other nasty letters".

@matthey:

Jens Schönfeld stated in a comment on amiga-news.de a while ago that he's trying to provoke Cloanto into sueing *him* ("can't wait, I'm ready").

He didn't say why he wouldn't sue *them*, given he claims they're distributing illegal copies of P96. It's *a lot* cheaper for him, if they sue him in Germany, obviously - but that might just be coincidence.

As for why he's targetting them in the first place: I don't know, but in Jens' case the most likely answer is always WORLD DOMINATION.

@cgutjahr

Thanks for the clarification.

As to the rest...

Quote:

Welcome to Amiga

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

The irony is that in Amiga land, it turns out that the Italians are honest, and Germans are a bunch of whiny besserwissers that can't be trusted at all.
(Not generalizing at all here, and I am half German myself.)

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

Is there anything like the Amiga anywhere?

I suppose this is the result when people try to own small pieces of the platform and hide the source. Well, I am getting rather tired of it, and I have a workaround for all this.

@number6

Quote:

For around a year, Thomas Richter - who now works on behalf of Jens Schönfeld on his commercial P96 distribution - and later also Jens Schonfeld himself, commented critically in various forums concerning the version of Picasso96 contained in Amiga Forever. Cloanto announced in a 2001 press release that P96 had been licensed by the original authors Alexander Kneer and Tobias Abt for use in Amiga Forever. Jens Schönfeld denies this, most recently by a press release in which he contradicted the Italian provider, also writing in the comment section of amiga-news.de of "blackened account statements and spongy e-mails" as the only evidence of the alleged licensing to Cloanto. Cloanto has now, apparently, made these particular emails and a transfer slip public, specifically the old Picasso announcement on its own website supplemented by a short note and a PDF document. The PDF contains two e-mails from an apparently longer exchange between Mike Battilana (Cloanto) and Alexander Kneer (Picasso96). Essentially, Battilana of Kneer confirms various formulations and license conditions. The most important from our point of view: * Battilana's Proposed License Notice: "Amiga Forever contains a licensed copy of Picasso96, which means that no additional shareware fees are due for this copy of the software, and the copy is licensed for use with Amiga Forever only and will not qualify for upgrades." Reaction of Alexander Kneer: "Perfect." * Inquiry Battilana: "Do you think we still have to sign a contract, or is this mail exchange sufficient for you? The mail traffic is sufficient if you agree." Answer Kneer: "Give me" ["Fine", or "Okay"]. * Battilana apparently sums up earlier conversation, not included in the PDF: "the agreed fee (in addition to shareware fees already paid in the past) for the use of Picasso96, replacing DM Sharp's existing shareware status is 2000 DM". He then asks if the account details he used a year ago are still up to date. Answer Kneer: "Nothing has changed " Finally, the published PDF still contains a copy of a transfer slip: On 4 December 2001, Cloanto Italia SRL, according to the receipt, transferred 1022.58 euros (ie 2000 DM) to an account at Sparkasse Ulm. Recipient: Abt & Kneer GbR, intended use: "Picasso96". In response to inquiries at amiga-news.de, Jens Schönfeld stated he does not doubt the authenticity of the mails, but asserts the individual messages were "taken out of context" to lead readers to "draw wrong conclusions". Currently, the lawyers of both sides are busy with the matter, so he did not want to comment on the issue.

I don't see any wrongdoing on the part of Cloanto here but, as always, we only have part of the story.

In situations like we see in the Amiga world, where individuals and groups have expended so much time and energy to contribute to their vision of the platform, it is perfectly natural for people to expect some kind of recognition or remuneration. The problem is, some don't respect the rights of others to hold these expections - some insist on having things their own way.

I would agree that open source is a good option for those who wish to carry on.

@kolla

even a german not understands everythig what other germans do. Fortunately my preferred platform is free of all that...

@thread

I do not understand why Jens does this. When Jens acquired P96 he threatened a hobby hardware developer who (unfortunately for Jens S.) made it public. After a shitstorm Jens said all a misunderstanding. Now this... I do not really understand him

And of course Cloanto is defending themselves now

Last edited by OlafS25 on 19-Feb-2019 at 08:38 AM.

@OlafS25

He's just old, grumpy and protective as hardware development is now mainly happening without him. It's perhaps not so funny to become redundant.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

At least pirates usually work together to make money before fighting over it.

Quote:

kolla wrote: The irony is that in Amiga land, it turns out that the Italians are honest, and Germans are a bunch of whiny besserwissers that can't be trusted at all. (Not generalizing at all here, and I am half German myself.)

And the French are more agreeable.

There are some good German leaders in the Amiga community who are often overlooked because they are meek. Frank Wille and Olaf "Olsen" Bathel come to mind.

My ancestry is nearly 100% German myself. I understand the (sometimes flawed) logic but also American (U.S.) style business leadership. German business leadership is usually a top down authoritarian micro managed style with the most qualified person overall at the top while American style is more about delegation of power and team effort using the strengths of each individual. I much prefer the latter and believe it to be more efficient. The flaw of the German style is that the most qualified leader overall often isn't good at certain areas yet micro manages them often sabotaging the whole effort. As applicable to the Amiga, a leader may be good at the technical side and not so good at the business side. This was a problem I had with Gunnar as part of the Apollo Team too.

Quote:

kolla wrote: He's just old, grumpy and protective as hardware development is now mainly happening without him. It's perhaps not so funny to become redundant.

The Clone-A project was rejected and has been eclipsed by other FPGA hardware and there are few fast 68k CPUs available today. Jens is a talented hardware guy who is understandably frustrated. The Amiga has a huge amount of hardware and FPGA talent if they could work together and the AmigaOS developers too.

Last edited by matthey on 19-Feb-2019 at 03:09 PM.

@snorg @number 6

So that looks to be Cloanto reply to the announcement made here.

https://icomp.de/shop-icomp/en/33/items/icomp-confirms-ownership-of-p96.html

But is the January 30th 2017 the correct date?

Last edited by Nonefornow on 19-Feb-2019 at 05:15 PM.
Last edited by Nonefornow on 19-Feb-2019 at 05:12 PM.
Last edited by Nonefornow on 19-Feb-2019 at 05:11 PM.

So, after reading this http://amiga-news.de/de/news/AN-2019-02-00027-DE.html
and the referenced pdf, it looks as if Cloanto may have some valid points.

However I do have to question the wisdom of releasing to the public, transaction information between Cloanto and another party.

Maybe there were previous private communications that did not resolve the issues.

@Nonefornow

Quote:

However I do have to question the wisdom of releasing to the public, transaction information between Cloanto and another party.

I would think an attorney made that decision, but that's just me.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

Quote:

Nonefornow wrote: However I do have to question the wisdom of releasing to the public, transaction information between Cloanto and another party. Maybe there were previous private communications that did not resolve the issues.

As long as they don't release the "private" information on an Amiga forum they should be ok. I posted some private e-mails (some with permission, some excerpts and one without permission from the liar) on EAB indicating Gunnar was lying and the mods complained despite me not finding any forum rules pertaining to posting private communications. The mods were not clear which posts they did not like so I deleted all my posts in that thread at which point they perma banned me.

Moral of the story: In our politically correct society, it is worse to spread private information than to spread lies.