Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcdchg!chinet!patrickd From: patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: Windows-the interface that may never happen... Message-ID: <1990Jun12.164625.21952@chinet.chi.il.us> Date: 12 Jun 90 16:46:25 GMT References: <4ad6ea11.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> <318@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> <1990Jun7.123548.5105@cs.utk.edu> Distribution: usa Organization: The Whitewater Group, Evanston, IL Lines: 32 In article <1990Jun7.123548.5105@cs.utk.edu> wozniak@utkux1.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) writes: > I have another idea. I know Actor makes Windows development >"easier," so why not a "quick" version of this? Or how about lowering >the price of Actor? Why not a language and development package that >runs under windows? Oh, say "Quick C for Windows"? There's no reason to lower the price of Actor. We already offer academic prices and, if you look at other Windows development tools, we're really very reasonably priced. Heck, we do a LOT more than the other guys do for the same price and we're still the only tool that truly allows you to create a robust Windows application without buying the SDK or a C compiler. As for a quick version, I'd really like to hear some ideas on how we could do this. Quick C vs C 5.1 or 6.0 can be seen in optimization. It would require backward engineering to make a non-optimized Actor and would be sorta silly. Limit the class library? What could we limit. If we remove the Windows classes then it defeats the purpose. Limit the amount of memory available? I don't think people would go for this. I've run over it in my head and really can not think of how we could create a "quick" version of Actor. If anyone has other ideas please tell me them. If I can create a limited Actor that we could distribute at a lower price I'd really like to do it. Patrick Deupree The Whitewater Group -- "Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for trivial pursuit." -Harlan Ellison Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us