RE: Code Extras

I don't think Windows pre-dates OS/2.  If you look at an older version of
NT, you will find an OS2 directory because NT is built loosely from OS/2.
Also, maybe all those Windows apps out there are wrong and CODE/400 is
handling the "X" correctly?  Anyway, it was a decision the developers made
a while back because they thought it was the right thing that needed to be
done.  It makes perfect sense to me and I changed my workflow because of
it. It has even made me change the way I shut down other apps, because I
have come across other apps that just don't seem to function correctly when
using the "X".  What seems as a little change to you and me could be a big
deal to them once they get deep into the source for CODE. It has happened
that way time and time again in the stuff I do at my job. Little things
turn into big things.  Also, why fix a "dead horse"?  I would rather have
them spending their time getting all the functionality of CODE into WDSc
than fixing this little issue.  You say it is an undocumented feature, but
it has been talked about on this list and the newsgroup a few times in the
past.

And as a final note, please quit ragging on the developers of CODE and
WDSC.  They are doing the best they can.  Also what they do on these lists
and newsgroups are out of the goodness of their hearts.  Just think you
could have to call IBM support for every little thing instead of using
these wonderful channels that are free.

-- Scott Johnson



I'm sure OS/2 and Windows handled the "X" the same way" close the
application but Windows was already out there when OS/2 came along.  I
think
the performance issue is related to saving *all* the settings (because
they're probably not keeping track of which ones have changed) and in
restarting the editor, which likely requires reading all those options,
setting up internal tables, and loading the background programs.

I don't care about a longer load time (once it's open, it's open...or is
it?), so I'm not sure what they mean by "performance".  Plenty of
applications need time to close (Windows and OS/400, to name two).  Based
on
the horsepower requirement for WSDC, I'd think some of this fuss about
performance is a concern of the 166 mHz days.

I wonder if an LPEX'er cares to contribute to this discussion and explain
the (ir-)rationale behind "X", performance, etc.?

-reeve