Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!canterbury!otago.ac.nz!michael
From: michael@otago.ac.nz
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: OOP--What do you think?
Message-ID: <1991Apr29.092809.323@otago.ac.nz>
Date: 28 Apr 91 22:14:38 GMT
References: <0B010004.difjcc3@outpost.UUCP>
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Lines: 28

In article <0B010004.difjcc3@outpost.UUCP>, peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) writes:
> 
> You will do much better with MacApp if you "go with the flow."  I
As someone who has been trying to use MacApp on and off for over a year I would
have to agree but comment on the sometimes extreme difficulty of discovering
where the flow is going.

My main problem is that the documentation is just inadequate when I want to
find the answer to a given question, and I usually can't even figure out
whether or not the question is inappropriate. What I really need is a guide to
each object type which would describe its fields and methods and *what they are
intended to do*. This is what is so often missing from the present
documentation and frequently forces me to read the MacApp source. This should
not be necessary. Then there are other things that just aren't there; try
finding a description of how to segment your application in the 2.0.1
documentation...

If it weren't for the fact that I have become convinced that I never want to
write a conventional application again I would drop MacApp, but its just so
good at what it does that I can't...


Michael(tm) Hamel, Computing Services Centre, University of Otago, New Zealand

RICHMOND (adj.)                    
Descriptive of the state that very respectable elderly ladies get into if
they have a little too much sherry, which, as everyone knows, does not make
you drunk.