Xref: utzoo comp.lang.smalltalk:423 comp.sys.mac:10209
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!ig!jade!ucbvax!hplabs!pyramid!voder!apple!lsr
From: lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Mac Smalltalk from Apple
Message-ID: <7079@apple.UUCP>
Date: 21 Dec 87 17:39:29 GMT
References: <323@uhmanoa.UUCP> <2630@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein)
Organization: Advanced Technology Group, Apple Computer
Lines: 30
Keywords: Smalltalk,Mac,MacApp

In article <2630@mmintl.UUCP> johnt@mmintl.UUCP (John Tangney) writes:
>
>In the Mac world, MacApp makes more sense than MVC, but on the other hand it
>would be nice if portability of any developed stuff could be maintained.
>Currently, Smalltalk-80 is one of the few systems which do allow true
>portability (don't flame me if that's not true, just explain :-) ), and it
>would be a pity to sacrifice that.

I am not involved with the Macintosh Smalltalk project, except as a user.

Macintosh Smalltalk will be language compatible with Parc Place Smalltalk.
The issue of porting an application, however, involves the available system
classes as well as the language.  I would imagine that an application
written in Parc Place Smalltalk would make use of MVC, and therefore would
require some changes before it would run in Macintosh Smalltalk.  Macintosh
Smalltalk will not contain any of the MVC classes.

So the situation is similar to that of porting an application from MS-DOS or
UNIX to the Macintosh.  You can use the same underlying data structures, but
will have to build a new user interface on top of that.

-- 
Larry Rosenstein

Object Specialist
Apple Computer

AppleLink: Rosenstein1
UUCP:  {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr
CSNET: lsr@Apple.com