Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!Apple.COM!lsr
From: lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: The Mac of the 90's....
Message-ID: <5788@internal.Apple.COM>
Date: 15 Dec 89 01:48:52 GMT
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
Organization: Objects-R-Us,  Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 77
References:<9986@zodiac.ADS.COM> <37167@apple.Apple.COM> <10088@zodiac.ADS.COM>

In article <10088@zodiac.ADS.COM> jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes:

> Let me put it this way... Instead of passing 5 parameters into a toolbox
> call, define 5 different entry points to the function (5 different

Do you mean instead of one function call with 5 parameters, 5 function 
calls with 1 parameter?  (I think an object-oriented architecture would 
make this easier, where an object can have a default state, which can be 
modified when needed.)

> Also I'd like to see some kind of .h file that defined symbols for use
> with these functions.  So instead of saying ToolBoxCall(-1, "\p", 0L, 
myFunc),

Good idea.  We did this in MacApp to some extent.

> This sounds like a reasonable argument, however you will note that the
> Amiga and Atari machines make good use of blitter hardware.  I'm sure

It seems to me that once you put part of your graphics system in hardware 
it is very difficult to upgrade it.  From what I read in comp.sys.amiga, 
the Amiga has gone through a couple of upgrades of its graphics hardware 
already.

> I note that changes in Quickdraw haven't obsoleted generations of 
laserprinters

But Postscript interpreters are updated occasionally, to add support for 
color, fix bugs, etc.

> The Lisa programming interface was object oriented?  Object oriented
> programming in the traditional sense includes class definitions,
> the construction of class libraries and methods to implement responses

The internal Lisa libraries were not object-oriented, but the only 
programmer's interface releasd outside of Apple was object-oriented (the 
Lisa Toolkit).  The Toolkit was a class library exactly as you desribe.

> did, it didn't carry over to the Mac.

It sure did in the form of MacApp.  

> I'm not sure what it is that you are claiming that Apple has
> accomplished on this front.  

I think Apple has been in the forefront of using object-oriented 
technology for real products.  When we were working on the Lisa Toolkit 
and later MacApp we always took the approach that this was the best way to 
develop applications.  

It's only been recently that other companies have started to adopt the 
same approach.  You can trace the origins of ET++, TCL, NeXT AppKit, and 
Aldus' VAMP (see the OOPSLA '89 proceedings) back to the Lisa Toolkit and 
MacApp.  

> performance and sophistication.  If the current state of affairs
> represents Apple's idea of the highest pinnacle of achievment then

I think Apple has already shown (with 32-bit QuickDraw, System 7, Comm 
Toolbox, etc.) that the Macintosh hasn't reached its full potential, and 
that will continue.

> customers and improving their existing products and SUPPORT.  I think
> this can be done and I've mentioned only a few possible improvements
> they could make.

I have collected lots of ideas and comments from people, and I will 
continue to do so.  (I look forward to using some of these suggestions 
someday. :-)



Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc.
Object Specialist

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