Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!apple!lsr From: lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: MacApp Sources... Message-ID: <364@apple.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Dec-86 14:40:57 EST Article-I.D.: apple.364 Posted: Mon Dec 8 14:40:57 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Dec-86 22:16:43 EST References: Reply-To: lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) Organization: Advanced Development Group, Apple Computer Lines: 66 >let me ask: what is MacApp written in? Object Pascal? Lisa Pascal? If it were >written in LisaPascal (which I seriously doubt), it would be useful to those >of us who can't afford an implementation of Object Pascal (read that MPW). >Ergo, it's written in Object Pascal. Besides, I would wager it's a huge >amount of code to post. Can you say "A megabyte of source code?" I bet you >can! > MacApp started out in the Lisa Workshop version of Object Pascal, and was ported to MPW Pascal. (The standard MPW Pascal compiler supports Object Pascal.) The MacApp sources are about a megabyte, and the sample programs take up another megabyte. When you buy MacApp you get 4 diskettes and several hundred pages of documentation. If you just want to look at the sources, APDA sells a printed listing. > Personally, I'd like to see more implementations of Object Pascal >(Like in a future version of Lightspeed Pascal), and a leaner MacApp library >-- one that DOESN'T need a meg and hard drive! Is a stripped MacApp possible? >Or a MacApp consisting of modules? > The simple fact is that MacApp implements a lot of features. We had very high standards for MacApp in terms of its adherence to the user interface guidelines, its error handling, and its reliability. In addition, MacApp was designed to be very general, so that it could be used in a variety of applications. It would certainly be possible to implement a MacApp-like framework that had only the most basic features in it. Such a framework would be more suitable for small utility applications or for learning Macintosh programming. Once you start implementing the rest of the MacApp features, I think you would end up with the same amount of code as in MacApp. One problem with dividing MacApp into separate units is that the principal MacApp object types all refer to one another. Right now the MPW Pascal compiler requires that they be defined in the same unit. (The compiler does not permit mutually recursive USES statements.) If that restriction was relaxed, then we could split the MacApp unit into several pieces. > What frosts me is that I am a college student, a programmer of some >experience, and a Macintosh developer of some experience, but I don't have >the resources (hardware = $$$$ x 10**3), so all these tools that Apple are >putting out -- and they are high-quality, too; in spite of its slowness and >size, MPW/MacApp is REALLY powerful -- are out of my reach! This is unfortunately true. MPW and MacApp are not intended for everyone. They are simply other alternatives for Macintosh programmers. I think that other third party products address the needs of the "kitchen-table" developers very well, while MPW and MacApp address the needs of professional developers. We would like to make MacApp available in other development systems, and have been working with third parties to make this happen. -- Larry Rosenstein Object Specialist Apple Computer AppleLink: Rosenstein1 UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET