Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!pyramid!gould9!joel From: joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Information, please (MPW and Object Pascal) Message-ID: <988@gould9.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Jan-87 22:01:15 EST Article-I.D.: gould9.988 Posted: Thu Jan 22 22:01:15 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Jan-87 21:19:09 EST References: <8017@tekecs.TEK.COM> <976@gould9.UUCP> <5306@clyde.ATT.COM> <320@escher.tc.fluke.COM> Organization: Western Software Technology, Vista, CA Lines: 81 Summary: In defense of MPW In article <320@escher.tc.fluke.COM>, mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) writes: > If you want a copy, you should get your order in to ADPA, as they will > likely be swamped (as usual). Amen. APDA has gone from 0-7,000 members, but Apple is going to pay major penalties (particularly with its developers) if does not help APDA solve its chronic logistical problems. > The main advantage to MPW is that you > can use Object Pascal and MacApp. The main advantages to MPW for most people have nothing to do with this: * It's complete * It's designed for big jobs * It's user extensible * The Pascal is 100% (not "99%" Lisa compatible) * The new tools are better than anything else available. (It's also big, slow, and expensive.) > Object Pascal is an extended Pascal > (blessed by Wirth) with messages, but no other object-oriented > extensions. > I have some problems with the lack other object-oriented extensions to > Object Pascal. The official line from Apple is that it confuses the > poor programmer. I feel that learning to program based on data > objects that can respond to methods is what slows most programmers > down, and obviously Object Pascal still requires that. Once this is > mastered, the more "advanced" concepts can be easily learned. After > all, aren't programmers supposed to be expert users? Larry Tesler was quite adamant about this at the MacApp Developer's Association meeting. "We are not going to add something for 5% the people. [programmers.]" (perhaps a paraphrase). One might not agree with it, but I believe Apple's view is that they are producing a journeyman product that is easy to use by programmers trained in more traditional approaches. As Tesler noted, object-oriented languages have been around for 20 years without taking off. And I think his Byte article (8/86) suggests he sees himself as an evangelist (like Alan Kay or Steve Jobs, in their own way) to popularize the technology, because it holds enormous benefits if it would ever get used. Besides, one advantage of this conservative approach is that it avoids what I call "kitchen sinkware." Apple also has not prevented others from contributing. While they may be the only ones to bring a supported Smalltalk out, other companies can solve other problems. Although overpriced as a Macintosh development tool ($995), ExperCommon Lisp appears to be a complete object-oriented language along the lines of what Brian wants. > Eventually, you may be able to program in Object Pascal without MPW (I > understand there is a version of TML Pascal that supports messages, > though it won't currently compile MacApp). TML 2.0 supports messages, but without conditional compilation, you'd have to hand-edit the sources, and also would lose the MacApp debugger. TML 3.0 might, but it's at least six months away. Comments @ TML suggests they might be more interested in being the only player in the IIgs market than the #3 (or #4, if Borland does well) in the Mac Pascal market. > And there are translators > in the works that may allow using MacApp from other object-oriented > languages, such as Smalltalk. But if you don't want to wait for > products that may never appear, MPW is the only choice. Apple is working on a "minimal C++", so I'd bet on it appear eventually, but, I agree, just about everthing else is utter vaporware. Apple, I'm sure, badly wants fileservers, and "desktop engineering", and more and cheaper and better laser printers. Third parties like Aldus want to have the leading "desktop publishing" packages. The comparative importance of advanced development software is negligible. Ironically, PPI has a product that might meet Brian's goals. But despite being hyped in Kurt Schmucker's book and articles, Mac Objective-C is still vaporware. Apparently some key PPI people still see the Mac as a toy. -- Joel West MCI Mail: 282-8879 Western Software Technology, POB 2733, Vista, CA 92083 {cbosgd, ihnp4, pyramid, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPA