Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!ads.com!killer!usenet
From: anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: News from the MacApp confrence.
Keywords: C++ monumental effort
Message-ID: <1991Feb9.214856.29229@verity.com>
Date: 9 Feb 91 21:48:56 GMT
References: <49769@cci632.UUCP> <1991Feb8.114742.12554@runx.oz.au>
Sender: usenet@verity.com (USENET News)
Reply-To: anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren)
Organization: Verity, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 44
In-Reply-To: philipc@runx.oz.au (Philip Craig)

In article <1991Feb8.114742.12554@runx.oz.au>, philipc@runx (Philip Craig) writes:
>In article <49769@cci632.UUCP> ph@cci632.UUCP (Pete Hoch) writes:
>
>>A friend of mine, Tom Myers, is at the confrence and he just
>>sent me a link last night that will answer a few questions.
>>
>>MacApp 3.0 is expected to ship in May.
>
>Amazing. That's ten times faster than MacApp 2.0 came out.
>

From what I can remember from the conference (why do they have to
start so early in the morning???), I think an alpha version is
supposed to be available on ETO #4, which should be coming out
sometime near May (ETO #3 is "building at this very moment and should
be shipping the first week of March").  Final 3.0 ship probably won't
be until the end of the year, at the earliest, I would expect.

>>
>>They have decoupled the disk file handling from the TDocument
>>object.  There is now a new file object.
>>
>>MacApp 3.0 has been completely ported over to C++ and the only
>>source that will be distributed with the 3.0 release will be
>>in C++.
>
>What? Has anyone else heard this same thing? That seems like a monumental
>amount of work, given that we haven't got a 2.0.1 or anything in C++
>currently. And all this by May? Incredible.


Yes, it was announced at the MacApp conference that this was being
done, to the chagrin of about 70 people who signed a petition on the
spot to keep it from happening, mostly because of the concurrency with
System 7.0.  While I think moving to C++ is a good thing, I think the
timing could have been better...

According the the Apple presentation, the actual port to C++, which
was heavily scripted, took a little more than 2 weeks, with 3 weeks of
bug fixing to get the basic demos running.  These figures don't
include the time spent on early versions of many of the scripts and
tools that did the actual translation, but is still a very encouraging
sign.  As I said earlier, I don't think we'll see anything but early
versions in May.