Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!newton.physics.purdue.edu!cca
From: cca@newton.physics.purdue.edu (Charles C. Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: ST/V versus ST-80 on a Mac II
Message-ID: <3677@newton.physics.purdue.edu>
Date: 9 May 90 15:09:34 GMT
References: <610@msor0.UUCP> <17834@well.sf.ca.us> <627@celia.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept, W.Lafayette, IN
Lines: 49

What this discussion seems to boil down to is that some people want to
use ST/V as a "Smalltalk" development environment, and some people
want to use it as a "Mac" development environment.  It works fine for
the former, but has serious shortcomings for the latter.  The big ones
are: no way to distribute double-clickable applications (fatal, as far
as I'm concerned), half-hearted integration of Mac tools (having all
the Mac stuff appear under the "MacObject" class is an indication of
this), no equivalent of the interface aspects of MacApp, there *still*
is no support of Color Quickdraw, etc. etc. etc.

> )proportionally-spaced text is not handled quite properly....

>   I did run into this problem, and was unfortunately forced to stick with
> even spaced fonts.  Someone some time ago posted to this newsgroup some
> simple changes to the methods to fix this bug.  Anyone still have
> the info?

I posted some changes that fixed this.  The simplest way these days is
to get the latest version from Digitalk (1.1? 1.2?  I forget...)
which appears to solve this problem.

> )It looks to me like a respectable, usable port of their Smalltalk into the
> )Mac environment.  It does use normal Mac paraphernalia like menus, windows,
> )etc.  It does give reasonably good access to the Mac toolbox.  I.e. it does
> )not treat the Mac as a 68000 with a raw bitmapped screen.  But it is NOT
> )a "real" Mac product.
> 
>   In summary, I think Daniel has given a rather harsh assessment of
> Smalltalk/V Mac.  I had a great time using it, and thought it worked
> very well.  I have used quite a few other pieces of Mac software that I
> was much more disappointed with.  I would be interested to know what Mac
> products he does consider to be "real".

I agree with the first poster.  It simply is not what most programmers
would consider a viable "Mac" development environment.  Personally, I
find the Smalltalk language to be the most elegant and desirable I've
ever used.  Alas, it is much harder to produce "real" applications
with ST/V Mac than with MacApp (MPW or THINK Pascal 3.0).  A "real"
Mac product would: allow me to create double-clickable applications,
allow me to get rid of the ST/V menus in my applications, not have all
the (for my purposes) cruft that allows compatibility with other ST/V
platforms but which I don't want, be reasonably up-to-date on system
support (Color Quickdraw has been out for YEARS!), and... well, you
get the idea.

Charles Allen			Internet: cca@newton.physics.purdue.edu
Department of Physics		HEPnet:   purdnu::allen, fnal::cca
Purdue University		talknet:  317/494-9776
West Lafayette, IN  47907