Re: Why remove NeXT support code?

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

On 01/10/2016 07:56 PM, sfeam wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 January 2016 02:56:46 PM Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>> I noticed that the subdirectory for the NeXT code has been removed.  I
>> wouldn't classify NeXT computers as obsolete.  There is still a bit of
>> activity surrounding them:
>>
>> http://www.nextcomputers.org/
>> http://www.nextcomputers.org/forums/
>>
>> Plus, NeXT is a classic.
>
> Sure.  And MSDOS was a classic.  And Version 7 unix was a classic.
> And Atari and Amiga were classics.   But it's a good bet that no one is
> running the CVS development version of gnuplot on them.

Not in the sense NeXT was.  Has to be a bit of an overachiever.  NeXT 
was a true operating system, with tons of tools like DisplayPostScript, 
color wheels, DSP co-processor, laser-jet printer, networking 
connections.  Save for a slow optical drive, it was the start of the 
personal workstation, albeit pricey.  Some of the first WWW code was 
written on a NeXT.


>> I can understand not wanting to have bits of "ifdef NEXT" in the main
>> code, though.
>
> The NeXT conditionals in the core code were work-arounds for NeXT
> compiler (gcc 3.2) and library deficiencies at that time.   From the comments,
> I bet they were already unneeded by 2003 (gcc 3.3) at the very latest.
>
>> Looking at what was removed, I see there is this
>> init_terminal() routine that has me wondering why there are so many
>> pre-process conditionals.
>> For example:
>>
>> #ifdef X11
>> #ifdef QTTERM
>> #ifdef WXWIDGETS
>>> are not operating systems, they are basically terminals.
>> Can't these bits of code be placed in the associated terminal files?
>
> Um, no.  This is the routine that determines the default terminal
> when the program is first entered.  Obviously you can't call into that
> terminal before you have figured out what it is.  And certainly you
> cannot call into it if it wasn't configured into the current binary.

OK, I see.

Dan