Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!apple!Apple.COM!lsr
From: lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: MacApp questions
Message-ID: <1136@internal.Apple.COM>
Date: 1 Apr 89 02:46:32 GMT
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
Organization: Objects-R-Us,  Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 37
References:<568190@vaxa.uwa.oz> <27618@apple.Apple.COM> <568218@vaxa.uwa.oz>

In article <568218@vaxa.uwa.oz> a_dent@vaxa.uwa.oz (Andy Dent, ph: 09 380 
2620) writes:

> Sorry, slight misunderstanding here - I have read the comments about 
application
> performance before - I was looking for comments on compile-time/linking.

The first version of MacApp was developed on a MacPlus (actually, we 
started on a Lisa), since there were no Mac IIs in those days.  I have to 
admit, however, that I don't use a MacPlus for development now.  

I think using a MacPlus will be possible, although it will probably be a 
bit slow (perhaps 5 minutes to recompile after a small change).  You only 
have to compile MacApp once.

> If (with a few changes) you can compile and link TML Pascal with MacApp, 
does
> that give you a means of using MacApp without MPW?  (I am rather put off 
by
> the vast cost of MPW.)

The TML compiler still runs as an MPW tool, but you get the necessary 
stuff with the compiler.  This does provide a lower-cost means of using 
MacApp.

> What happened to Object-Oriented Programming for the rest of us 
> (ie:  Low-budget/Bright-ideas/Potential-genii)

Both TML Pascal II and THINK Pascal 2.0 are low-cost.  Both provide 
object-oriented programming, although onlt TML provides MacApp support 
today.  Symantec is still working on MacApp support for THINK Pascal 2.0.

Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc.
Object Specialist

Internet: lsr@Apple.com   UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr
AppleLink: Rosenstein1