ph@cci632.UUCP (Pete Hoch) (02/05/91)
A friend of mine, Tom Myers, is at the confrence and he just sent me a link last night that will answer a few questions. MacApp 3.0 is expected to ship in May. They have decoupled the disk file handling from the TDocument object. There is now a new file object. MacApp 3.0 has been completely ported over to C++ and the only source that will be distributed with the 3.0 release will be in C++. Have a happy, Pete Hoch
philipc@runx.oz.au (Philip Craig) (02/08/91)
In article <49769@cci632.UUCP> ph@cci632.UUCP (Pete Hoch) writes: >A friend of mine, Tom Myers, is at the confrence and he just >sent me a link last night that will answer a few questions. > >MacApp 3.0 is expected to ship in May. Amazing. That's ten times faster than MacApp 2.0 came out. > >They have decoupled the disk file handling from the TDocument >object. There is now a new file object. > >MacApp 3.0 has been completely ported over to C++ and the only >source that will be distributed with the 3.0 release will be >in C++. What? Has anyone else heard this same thing? That seems like a monumental amount of work, given that we haven't got a 2.0.1 or anything in C++ currently. And all this by May? Incredible.
anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) (02/10/91)
In article <1991Feb8.114742.12554@runx.oz.au>, philipc@runx (Philip Craig) writes: >In article <49769@cci632.UUCP> ph@cci632.UUCP (Pete Hoch) writes: > >>A friend of mine, Tom Myers, is at the confrence and he just >>sent me a link last night that will answer a few questions. >> >>MacApp 3.0 is expected to ship in May. > >Amazing. That's ten times faster than MacApp 2.0 came out. > From what I can remember from the conference (why do they have to start so early in the morning???), I think an alpha version is supposed to be available on ETO #4, which should be coming out sometime near May (ETO #3 is "building at this very moment and should be shipping the first week of March"). Final 3.0 ship probably won't be until the end of the year, at the earliest, I would expect. >> >>They have decoupled the disk file handling from the TDocument >>object. There is now a new file object. >> >>MacApp 3.0 has been completely ported over to C++ and the only >>source that will be distributed with the 3.0 release will be >>in C++. > >What? Has anyone else heard this same thing? That seems like a monumental >amount of work, given that we haven't got a 2.0.1 or anything in C++ >currently. And all this by May? Incredible. Yes, it was announced at the MacApp conference that this was being done, to the chagrin of about 70 people who signed a petition on the spot to keep it from happening, mostly because of the concurrency with System 7.0. While I think moving to C++ is a good thing, I think the timing could have been better... According the the Apple presentation, the actual port to C++, which was heavily scripted, took a little more than 2 weeks, with 3 weeks of bug fixing to get the basic demos running. These figures don't include the time spent on early versions of many of the scripts and tools that did the actual translation, but is still a very encouraging sign. As I said earlier, I don't think we'll see anything but early versions in May.
Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.mmug.edgar.mn.org (Jim Spencer) (02/13/91)
Anders Wallgren writes in a message to All >>MacApp 3.0 has been completely ported over to C++ and the only >>source that will be distributed with the 3.0 release will be >>in C++. > >What? Has anyone else heard this same thing? That seems like a monumental >amount of work, given that we haven't got a 2.0.1 or anything in C++ >currently. And all this by May? Incredible. AW> AW> Yes, it was announced at the MacApp conference that this was AW> being done, to the chagrin of about 70 people who signed a petition AW> on the spot to keep it from happening, mostly because of the AW> concurrency with System 7.0. While I think moving to C++ is a AW> good thing, I think the timing could have been better... Apparently the announcement at the MADA conference has generated open warfare both inside and outside Apple. The smartest suggestion I've heard is that both Pascal and C++ versions be made available. The advantages I've heard put forward include the fact that it won't orphan Think Pascal users and it will keep the C++ side from using C++ specific gagets like multiple inheritance. Please note that personally I'm just as happy using C++ and think its the way of the future but a lot of people have invested a lot of time in Object Pascal. The argument I hear from the C++ crowd that they have had to be willing to read Pascal code up until now so its fair to force the Pascal crowd to read C++ doesn't work: anyone using C++ with MacApp did so with their eyes open. There are a lot of Pascal users of MacApp that have had no clue that they were going to be forced to learn a language that many of them abhore. -- Jim Spencer - via The Minnesota Macintosh Users Group UUCP-Fido Gateway UUCP: ...uunet!tcnet!kksys!edgar!mmug!22.510!Jim.Spencer INET: Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.mmug.edgar.mn.org