len@qumix.UUCP (Leonard Labar) (10/07/84)
Does anyone have any insights on what's the best program language software available or soon to be available for the Mac. What I've heard about so far is: 1. Modula II -a superset of pascal. I've heard the least expensive versions aren't that good. 2. Forth - 3 levels with rapidly escalated prices as you progress. A fast executing language, the dictionary is neat, the way the stack handles arithmentic is not so neat. 3. C -I hear it has bugs in the released version. For around $2k (gasp!) you can buy a cross-assembler version to run on your mainframe. Q.- Since we have Unix 4.2 and a C compilor at work anyway, why isn't there a cheaper, better way to go on this? It seems like a terminal emulator program with download and some primitive vax to Mac toolkit algorithums would be all you'd need. I guess they wouldn't make enough money that way. 4. Fortran 77 - This also runs on our vax but I see no vax support on that advertisement. 5. Pascal - Nice, clean structured language but less I/O capabilities than Modula II. Probably slower execution speed that Forth. 6. Mbasic - Now there's a language everybody understands. Unfortanately, it's slow and I unless you get something like waterloo basic, you get tired of using go to's and yearn for something more structured after awhile. Cbasic is fast but I don't think they have that for the Mac yet. 7. Let's see, what have I missed. I haven't seen 68000 assembly language available for the single 128k Mac yet. The only answer I got as to why was that nobody wants to write programs that are limited to 64k. My answer was "well, why don't you let us at least TRY." If that was the only reason, we should see it come out for the 512k version eventually. 8. What decides which is the "best" programmming language for the Mac? My thoughts- price, availability, no bugs, transportability, ease to learn it, execution speed, development time, ease of understanding to other programmers, program structure, I/O capability, and documentation either built into the SW or in the manuals.
ning@ur-univax.UUCP (10/08/84)
> Does anyone have any insights on what's the best program language > software available or soon to be available for the Mac... ... > What decides which is the "best" programmming language for the Mac? > My thoughts- price, availability, no bugs, transportability, ease to > learn it, execution speed, development time, ease of understanding to > other programmers, program structure, I/O capability, and documentation > either built into the SW or in the manuals. Some years ago, just as Pascal became popular, we read and heard much about using the "correct" programming language. Arguments abounded about using the correct level of abstraction in a program versus arguments the speed and efficieny of it's resulting code. You couldn't beat the Fortran jock by writing faster code, but you couldn't beat the his Pascal opponent by implementing more elegant and sophisticated algorithms. Doesn't the same argument hold true when choosing the correct langauge for the Macintosh? Who won? Well, absolutely no one starts a new project using Fortran; however, not many use Pascal, either. It seems that no one won. Many programmers prefer C; critical applications demand assembly langauge; and a good deal of business gets done over APL and some coffee. The point that I am trying to make is that the right langauge should provide the right level abstraction for the task, and more. Sometimes it's nearly impossible to reach a creative frame of mind with a langauge that's obtuse to your thoughts. [See Alan Kay's and Lawrence Tesler's articles (you know who they are) in September's single- topic issue of _Scientific_American_.] With the limited choice of compilers available, I will agree that most of them are barfworthy implementations; they won't survive their infancy. It is tempting to use something that produces beautiful code or gets the quickie program done. But then you will be stuck with an assembly-langauge recipe-finder, or a Basic, smart-terminal program that runs 50-baud serial-ports, or the chore of translating them. All because the right compiler implementation didn't exist at the time. No one could say anything truer of the Macintosh. Software houses have come out with about 20 different C compilers for the IBM PC, and some of them generate straight-jacket-tight code. Why--competition and a growing market of demanding PC developers. (All this nagging is not in vain.) However, let's not limit ourselves to just C compilers. Here at the University of Rochester on a BSD 4.2 Vax exists a Modula-2 compiler (from DEC Western Research Labs) that blows away the Unix C compiler. (And we all know that Modula's syntax is similar to Pascal's.) While I am not trying to be as dogmatic as Niklaus Wirth, the point is that you should choose a langauge that you like and is suitable for the job, and then get the right implementation/s as they become available. Ning____ ..!{allegra|siesmo}!rochester!ur-univax!ning about time someone--anyone--put the U of R on the netland map.
ning@ur-univax.UUCP (10/08/84)
> Does anyone have any insights on what's the best program language > software available or soon to be available for the Mac... ... > What decides which is the "best" programmming language for the Mac? > My thoughts- price, availability, no bugs, transportability, ease to > learn it, execution speed, development time, ease of understanding to > other programmers, program structure, I/O capability, and documentation > either built into the SW or in the manuals. Some years ago, just as Pascal became popular, we read and heard much about using the "correct" programming language. Arguments abounded about using the correct level of abstraction in a program versus arguments the speed and efficieny of it's resulting code. You couldn't beat the Fortran jock by writing faster code, but you couldn't beat the his Pascal opponent by implementing more elegant and sophisticated algorithms. Doesn't the same argument hold true when choosing the correct langauge for the Macintosh? Who won? Well, absolutely no one starts a new project using Fortran; however, not many use Pascal, either. It seems that no one won. Many programmers prefer C; critical applications demand assembly langauge; and a good deal of business gets done over APL and some coffee. The point that I am trying to make is that the right langauge should provide the right level abstraction for the task, and more. Sometimes it's nearly impossible to reach a creative frame of mind with a langauge that's obtuse to your thoughts. [See Alan Kay's and Lawrence Tesler's articles (you know who they are) in September's single- topic issue of _Scientific_American_.] With the limited choice of compilers available, I will agree that most of them are barfworthy implementations; they won't survive their infancy. It is tempting to use something that produces beautiful code or gets the quickie program done. But then you will be stuck with an assembly-langauge recipe-finder, or a Basic, smart-terminal program that runs 50-baud serial-ports, or the chore of translating them. All because the right compiler implementation didn't exist at the time. No one could say anything truer of the Macintosh. Software houses have come out with about 20 different C compilers for the IBM PC, and some of them generate straight-jacket-tight code. Why--competition and a growing market of demanding PC developers. (All this nagging is not in vain.) However, let's not limit ourselves to just C compilers. Here at the University of Rochester on a BSD 4.2 Vax exists a Modula-2 compiler (from DEC Western Research Labs) that blows away the Unix C compiler. (And we all know that Modula's syntax is similar to Pascal's.) While I am not trying to be as dogmatic as Niklaus Wirth, the point is that you should choose a langauge that you like and is suitable for the job, and then get the right implementation/s as they become available. [Anyway, why am I hashing all this out. I though people already knew this stuff.] Ning____ ..!{allegra|siesmo}!rochester!ur-univax!ning about time someone--anyone--put the U of R on the netland map.
ech@spuxll.UUCP (Ned Horvath) (10/11/84)
First, your question -- "what is the BEST programming language for the mac" -- is out of order: you program best in what you are most comfortable with. There is a pretty clear consensus that MS Basic is about as poor as anything you will encounter, but the tops is largely a matter of taste: no doubt Jerry Pournelle will use Modula II when he eventually gives in... Personally, I have MacFORTH level 2 ($250 list) which has a built-in assembler that true FORTH hackers will want to have; even level 1 has a few defining words that allow many of the toolbox traps to be reached, in addition to the many traps that they support directly. More precisely, that is version 1.1. Window, menu, sound, and graphics are pretty well supported, and the all-but-compiled object is pretty fast. A good, effective medium for probing the toolbox calls, and you can do some learning and fun stuff while you are waiting for a "good" modula II or native mode C or whatever. In answer to another of your questions, the latest Club Mac News has an ad for MacASM, a "co-resident Editor/MacroAssembler for the Macintosh." Introductory price $100 from Mainstream, 28611B Canwood St., Agoura Hills CA 91301. Tel (818) 991-6540. I have no idea how well the fact corresponds to the copy. More generally, there is simply no way to make effective use of the Mac AS A PROGRAMMER without the Inside Macintosh documentation. In for a penny, in for a pound: for $150 you get Inside Macintosh, or you can wait for the hardcover book (probably next Spring) for somewhat less money. For another $100 you get the LISA WorkShop (WS) Supplement, which is the only way to get the updates to the above AND they will throw in a copy of the hardcover when published. They have had some REAL problems getting this stuff out the door, but there is NOWHERE else to get the data. The WS supplement, by the way, is not entirely useless: you also get 8 disks or so, 3 of which are readable by the Mac. I have no Lisa, but the three disks I can read have lots of useful tools on them. Let's see, so far I have told you how to spend $600 while you wait for the right language processor. Sounds like enough for now. But if you are serious, get Inside Macintosh FIRST. =Ned=