sec@uhmanoa.UUCP (James Chang) (12/15/87)
regarding forthcoming smalltalk from Apple. I saw demonstration of Alpha ? version at OOPSLA'87. It was definitely up and running and I think it could run on Multi finder. This version is different from previous smalltalk from apple macintosh groupd(latest is V0.4) which was straight Xerox port. This version which is built on top of normal smalltalk virtual image replaces standard MVC user interfaces with MacApp libraray translated from MacPascal to Smalltalk. The idea I guess is that you could implement Macintosh application on Smalltalk using MacApp library and then port to standard Macintosh development enviroment such as MPW with Object Pascal or C++(yes, I thinkg Apple is also working on this). The version I saw had full MacAPP library implemented such as TFrame, TDocument so forth. I think it supposed to be available on summer of '88 in APDA if all goes well. It would be interesting once this product comes out. It certainly would make smalltalk popular although it deviates from standard smalltalk. I wish I can beta-test this smalltalk. Are you listening apple ?
johnt@mmintl.UUCP (John Tangney) (12/18/87)
In article <323@uhmanoa.UUCP> sec@uhmanoa.UUCP (James Chang) writes: >regarding forthcoming smalltalk from Apple. ......... > It certainly would >make smalltalk popular although it deviates from standard smalltalk. >I wish I can beta-test this smalltalk. Are you listening apple ? Yes, I saw it too. I seem to recall that after speaking to the folks at Apple and ParcPlace, it emerged that Apple's Smalltalk is *significantly* different from Smalltalk-80. I would like to know just *how* different, and where the differences are. Apart from MVC paradigm, are there any other serious impediments to portability? 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. My reason for wanting Smalltalk-80 compatibility is that I want to use the HyperScore ToolKit from ParcPlace. How much work would it take to port HyperScore to Apple Smalltalk? Is it worth it, seeing that Smalltalk-80 lets you talk to the rest of the Mac? Anyone at Apple and ParcPlace have any comments? All the best johnt
kentb@apple.UUCP (Kent Beck) (12/20/87)
Here is the scoop on Macintosh Smalltalk (or whatever we end up calling it): First off let me say that it is not the policy of Apple Computer to comment on unannounced products. Of course, we did show MST off at OOPSLA, and we are shipping a version through APDA. So maybe it's kind of announced, or leaked, or something. MST is based on the Xerox version 1 image. We are removing MVC and replacing it with the Mac Toolbox and MacApp. On top of that we are re-implementing the user interface (title bars, dialog boxes, menu bar, etc). We have finished our first cut at the UI and I'm in the process of removing the MVC classes (a great feeling, let me tell you!) As soon as that's done we'll make our first internal alpha release. A public pre-release will go out via APDA sometime mid-ish next year (what professional vague-ity. I should be a manager) I'll keep the net posted on progress. Feel free to contact me with comments, opinions, bug reports, etc. Kent Beck Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani, MS 27E Cupertino, CA 95014 kentb@apple.UUCP 408/973-6027 -- Kent Beck Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani, MS 27E Cupertino, CA 95014 uucp: kentb@apple.UUCP csnet: kentb@apple.csnet 408/973-6027
lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) (12/22/87)
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
leslie@teklds.TEK.COM (Les Rohde) (12/22/87)
In article <7073@apple.UUCP>, kentb@apple.UUCP (Kent Beck) writes: > > Here is the scoop on Macintosh Smalltalk (or whatever we end up calling it): > ... > MST is based on the Xerox version 1 image. We are removing MVC and replacing > it with the Mac Toolbox and MacApp. On top of that we are re-implementing > the user interface (title bars, dialog boxes, menu bar, etc). We have > finished our first cut at the UI and I'm in the process of removing the MVC > classes (a great feeling, let me tell you!) As soon as that's done we'll > .... OK, but wouldn't it be nice if I could develop programs on Teks, Suns, DECs, IBMs and Macs that would all look and run the same? So maybe I don't know what is removed by all this, but I must assume that an application (MVC of course) done on my Tek workstation (no use of the extensions) may not even filein on a mac and will certainly not work properly. Right? Different is often better -- I own a mac at home, use a mac at work and will never use an msdos prompt again, but sameness is often an advantage as well. The unifing power of unix is the great degree of portability across vendor's and it's pitfall is the change vendors introduce that impede portability (not purposely so, in general). For us developers of applications that run on many different boxes this is a continuing nightmare and ultimately reduces the range of choice available to customers. This goes double for languages and triple for languages that are also operating systems. St80 is a VERY big system and learning two of them just seems unjustified. There are no doubt good reasons for the changes you are making but it means that some of the rest of us will not be buying any because Apple is not the only computer in the world. Too bad. I had hoped for a workstation with my favorite language, my favorite OS and all my favorite applications all on one box -- I guess I'll have to save room for my Tek workstation after all. Leslie Rohde tektronix!teklds!leslie CAE Systems Division 503-629-3051 Tektronix What were once vices are now habits.
johnson@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (12/22/87)
Apple's unreleased Smalltalk seems to be as different from Smalltalk-80 as Digitalk's, even though it is derived from Smalltalk-80. Not only did they throw out MVC, but they are using Macintosh graphics instead of bitblt based graphics. Thus, few applications will port. Unless portability is important to you, Apple's ideas make a lot of sense. The Mac graphics are much better (in my opinion) than the Smalltalk ones, and the Mac user interface is better too, at least for novices. (I prefer three button mice and popup menus to one button mice and pulldown menus, but I am not a novice.) Apple intends their system to be used to build Macintosh applications. If you want a conventional Smalltalk user-interface than you can buy Parc Place System's interpreter for the Mac. Parc Place System's interpreter is faster than Apple's. PPS is in the business of selling Smalltalk implementations, while Apple is in the business of selling Macintoshes. Thus, it is not surprising that PPS concentrates on making faster interpreters and making a portable image nicer, while Apple concentrates on making an image that is more compatible with the Macintosh.
shap@sfsup.UUCP (J.S.Shapiro) (12/23/87)
In article <7079@apple.UUCP>, lsr@apple.UUCP writes: > > 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. > > -- > Larry Rosenstein > Larry, has anyone considered developing some sort of portability library to make all of this stuff come out in the wash? I don't know anything about Smalltalk, (a few weeks hacking doesn't count), but it would seem to me that this should be possible. Think you might suggest it as feedback from someone out in the Usenet community? Jon Shapiro AT&T Information Systems
stuart@ihlpf.ATT.COM (S. D. Ericson) (12/23/87)
In article <2684@teklds.TEK.COM>, leslie@teklds.TEK.COM (Les Rohde) writes: [writes about problems of new Apple version of Smalltalk for the Mac...] > > Too bad. I had hoped for a workstation with my favorite language, > my favorite OS and all my favorite applications all on one box -- I > guess I'll have to save room for my Tek workstation after all. > It's not that you cannot have the MVC paradigm on the Mac, its just that you won't be getting that from Apple. So buy the "real" system from ParcPlace Systems. It will probably cost a LOT more, but you seem to want the real thing. Stu "PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow." -- Henry Spencer -- Stuart Ericson USnail: AT&T Bell Laboratories USENET: ...!ihnp4!ihlpf!stuart IH 6M-313 voice: (312) 979-4152 Naperville-Wheaton Rd. Naperville, Il 60566
sec@uhmanoa.UUCP (James Chang) (12/24/87)
In article <80500023@uiucdcsp> johnson@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >Apple's unreleased Smalltalk seems to be as different from Smalltalk-80 >as Digitalk's, even though it is derived from Smalltalk-80. Not only >did they throw out MVC, but they are using Macintosh graphics instead of >bitblt based graphics. Thus, few applications will port. > >Unless portability is important to you, Apple's ideas make a lot of sense. >The Mac graphics are much better (in my opinion) than the Smalltalk ones, >and the Mac user interface is better too, at least for novices. (I prefer >three button mice and popup menus to one button mice and pulldown menus, >but I am not a novice.) Apple intends their system to be used to build >Macintosh applications. If you want a conventional Smalltalk user-interface >than you can buy Parc Place System's interpreter for the Mac. I don't think pull down menu is any way better than pop up menu, even for the novices. Only people who would prefer pull down menu is from Macintionsh users Also, pull down menu was designed specifically for Macintosh user interfaces where only single application was running(until MultiFinder) in small screen. But for Smalltalk systems where you have different windows running different application, pull down menu is inappropriate. However the biggest problem I feel with MacSmalltalk is that It imposes Mactinosh OS on to Smalltalk environment resulting very awkard compromises. Remeber what the original intention of smalltalk which stands for modeless editing and extensible user interfaces. The current macintosh application seemes to be heading toward more complex appliction with more complex user interfaces(try to use Word 3.0!!) with endless combination of command key and option keys. Let's go back to less complexity which provided by standard smalltalk(at least in some sense) and more innovative ideas. We don't need another metamorphorsis of good system such as Smalltalk-80 -- Sehyo Chang (Smalltalk Hacker) ARPA: uhmanoa!sec@nosc.MIL Software Engineering Research Lab INTER: sec@uhmanoa.ICS.HAWAII.EDU UH/ICS Dept, 2565 The Mall Disclaimer: What opinions ? Honolulu Hi, 96822 (808) 948-6938
warner@scubed.UUCP (Ken Warner) (12/30/87)
In article <2684@teklds.TEK.COM> leslie@teklds.TEK.COM (Les Rohde) writes: >In article <7073@apple.UUCP>, kentb@apple.UUCP (Kent Beck) writes: >> Here is the scoop on Macintosh Smalltalk (or whatever we end up calling it): >> ... >> MST is based on the Xerox version 1 image. We are removing MVC and replacing >> .... > > OK, but wouldn't it be nice if I could develop programs on Teks, > Suns, DECs, IBMs and Macs that would all look and run the same? ... >Leslie Rohde tektronix!teklds!leslie I'm new to Smalltalk. Been working in it for about a month and a half. Been using a Tektronix 4404 which is really neat. It is the portability of programs across many different computers which makes Smalltalk, in my eyes, the object-oriented language of choice. I have worked (off and on) in the Symbolics' environment for about two years and while Flavors and Dynamic Windows are very good, their usefulness in a heterogeneous environment, like what we (S-Cubed) have, is limited. With Smalltalk one can develop on a variety of more powerful workstations and port to cheap workstations. This is good! I vote for keeping Smalltalk constant over all environments. I may be wrong, but doesn't ParcPlace have a version that will run on Mac (SE, II) ?