Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!lsr From: lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: MacApp -> GSApp? Message-ID: <9488@goofy.Apple.COM> Date: 30 Jul 90 19:10:41 GMT References: <1990Jul25.214526.8462@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <43375@apple.Apple.COM> Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. Lines: 37 In article <43375@apple.Apple.COM> dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) writes: > >If you believe a MacApp-like approach would mean *less* stuff you have >to read, you -may- be very mistaken. I have written only -trivial- >stuff with MacApp, but if I were doing a real application I would >want to understand how everything worked, meaning I would have to >understand the toolbox and OS *and* the MacApp-ish layer on top of >it. I don't think this is true for everyone. I think lots of people have been able to get started with MacApp without reading the MacApp code or reading all of Inside Macintosh. >Don't you find with MacApp you need to refer to the source to the >MacApp layer a lot to see how it works? I don't think this is necessary unless you are doing something very sophisticated, or you are tracking down a possible MacApp bug. With the proper MacApp class/tutorial/book, you should be able to produce a sophisticated application without referring to MacApp's source code or understanding the details of the Toolbox. If you are the type of programmer that wants to understand all the underlying details, then you will have to do a lot of reading. (After all, MacApp itself is a complete application, and it's always harder to read someone else's code.) In that case, MacApp may not be right for you. If you start with the MacApp example programs and tutorial, then you can write your application much more quickly, and get a lot of benefit from MacApp. -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 46-B Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr