Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!xanth!mcnc!ece-csc!ncrcae!PEDEV!rogerson
From: rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Wanted: Actor, Microsoft Windows Toolkit
Message-ID: <2531@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM>
Date: 24 May 89 13:08:45 GMT
References: <1072@koko.CSUStan.EDU> <2512@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM> <8511@chinet.chi.il.us>
Reply-To: rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson)
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC
Lines: 93

In article <8511@chinet.chi.il.us> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) writes:
>In article <2512@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM> rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) writes:
>>
>>In theory I really like Actor, but in practice it fails.  It takes alot of
>>memory to run Actor.  It is difficult to bind an application, i.e. make a
>>stand alone program.  
>
>    Sealing off an application is not so difficult once someone gets used to
>it.  I mean, it took me a while to figure out make files and things like that
>when I was working with C back on the good old unix systems at college.  The
>main problem we've had with sealing off is that we have to rely on the resource
>compiler, and that seems to be where everyone has a problem.  The other area
>people seem to have trouble with is figuring out what classes to include in the
>sealed off applications and which ones not to.  It's a little tough, but not
>overly so.
This is a matter of opinion.  Lets just say that binding an application is
not straight forward.  However, it can be done and I am sure that the more
times you do it the better you will get.  Just call the Actor BBS with your
questions.

>
>>The smallest code size is > 75k and more realistically
>>about 200k.  For my applications this memory requirement is excessive. 
>
>	What code size are you talking about here?  If you're talking about
>the EXE file, not all of that is loaded into memory.  If you're just talking
>about what goes into memory alone, you won't find many applications (complex
>ones that is) that use less than 100K of memory.  However, you are right in the
>fact that it involves more binary size than a rmal C program might.  However,
>the programs generally run fast when written in Actor and they are much
>smaller in actual written code size.
	The number 200K came directly off of the Actor BBS.  I did not make it
	up.  True many LARGE applications are bigger than 100k, like Windows
	Write (~190K), PaintBrush (~250K), and Excel (~550K), however Windows
	Write will run in 8k of memory.  Actor programs do not work this way.
	They load as one big hunk.  This is called a memory hog.  This is 
	fine for prototypes, but not for the finished application.  However,
	as I said about, this is too big for *my* applications.  Everyone else
	can evaluate this for themselves.  Now for a clarification that my
	message should have had: this 75k overhead is not proportional to the
	code size, it is a one time penalty. 
		
> 
>>Actor does not do a good enough join of isolating one from Windows this makes
>>it more difficult to use than I would like.  Learning to program Windows is not
>>easy.  However, with Actor you must also learn Actor, OOPs, and Windows all at
>>the same time.  This is even more difficult.  
>>
>>If you want to write Windows programs you will still need to get the development
>>kit from Microsoft to really understand what is happening.
>>
>
>You don't really need the SDK to use Actor.  There is a book called "Programming
>Windows" by Charles Petzold that describes most of the Windows calls you'll
>ever need to make.  The only reason one would need the SDK is if they wanted
>to create a DLL or DDE (Dynamic Link Library or Dynamic Data Exchange).  The
>Petzold book, however, is much easier to read than the SDK manual and has C
>examples that I've found easy to convert to Actor.
	I started programming for Windows with Actor and Petzold's book and
	I found this combination extremely difficult for any real work.
	Petzold's book is fantastic and a must for any Windows programming
	in C, Modula 2, C++, or Actor.  However, Petzold's book is not a
	reference.  The "how-to" information in the SDK is only so-so, but
	the reference information is invaluable.  In order to use the 
	Window's calls you need to know how they work, the SDK tells you this. 
	Otherwise you will spend hours finding out what the SDK tells you in
	minutes.

	If you want to program in Actor, using the window classes that are
	provided, then you do not need the SDK, but if you want to write 
	Windows programs, like the original poster, then you will need
	the SDK.
>
>Feel free to mail this account with any questions you may have about Actor.
>I'll be happy to answer them.
>
>				Patrick Deupree

	I am sorry if I sound like I am down on Actor.  It is because it is
	so close to what I want to be using.  Again, I would like to say
	that anyone who can get it on an Educational Discount should buy Actor
	today and see for yourself ( a fantastic way to learn OOPs).  If you
	cannot get the discount, then buy the SDK first, read through Petzold's
	book, write some short programs, and then buy Actor.  (This is the
	same approach as learning assembler and then a high level language. I
	fully believe it is the best approach in this case.)
 
	Glad to see that there is are Actor programmers on the net.
	Do you know when Actor 2.0 is going to be released? I am really
	looking forward to it.

	-----Dale
		Rogerson-----