Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!udel!burdvax!dave
From: dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: ProtoTyper 2.0
Message-ID: <11287@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM>
Date: 29 Aug 89 20:56:09 GMT
References: <702@chyde.uwasa.fi> <18000005@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@PRC.Unisys.COM
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Paoli Research Center; Paoli, PA
Lines: 51

In article <18000005@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> hoffman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>Well, I've used the prototyper 2.0 also, and it does, in fact, create
>code for the Mac.  But, the amount of redundant and unnecessary code it 
>generates, it's not really worth it.  The only thing I see prototyper
>good for is a tutorial to learn the routines in the first place
>(since Inside Mac isn't any good at it).  For instance, if you want
>to learn how to add a list window to a dialog, use the prototyper to see
>what the code needs to do, but don't use that code.  It's will generate
>tons of unreferenced local variables.
>
>Steve

I have to disagree, a little.  Yes, the code is redundant; in
particular, for each window you define, it creates a standard package
of routines that are tailored to that window, and often the tailoring
is minimal.  Also, it puts lots of hooks in for your code--probably
more than you will use.

This may be esthetically displeasing to those who emphasize efficiency
in their programs.  I'm not one; my time is more important to me than
the computer's time.  Now if the performance of the program were
significantly impaired, I would want to bring it up to snuff, but: (1)
It would take an awfully complex interface before the amount of extra
memory required became a problem; (2) Milliseconds really don't matter
much when interfacing to a human; and (3) You have to hack the code
anyway (to add your stuff in), and I haven't found it difficult just
to discard portions of the code I knew I wouldn't need.

I'd be happy for SmetherBarnes to work on producing more efficient
interface code.  But I think it's more important that they work on
producing a cleaner interface between their generated code and my
application code; it's currently more work than it should be to
reconnect my application to a modified human interface.

As for "tons of unreferenced variables"--I don't know what you mean.
The Think Pascal code that it generates for me contains only (1)
variables that are clearly used in its code, and (2) variables that I
am likely to want to reference in my application.  Maybe I missed
some, but if so, I don't care--the code is error-free and does the job.

I think it's a matter of programmming style.  Prototyper code tries to
be relatively clear, at the expense of efficiency.  I don't need the
efficiency, but at this stage in my learning to program the Mac, I do
need the clarity.  So I like it.


-- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com)
-- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA  19301
-- Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is improbable.
* 20th anniversary?  Yeah, but it's 17 years since the LAST man on the moon! *