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
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
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