twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) (01/19/91)
Hi....
I've been reading in this group and in comp.sys.mac.digest about a
tool called AppMaker, which is supposedly similar to Prototyper. Can
some tell me who manufactures it, and why it is preferable to
Prototyper?
Thanks in advance,
Ted
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet/CSnet: twl@cs.brown.edu | Ted "Theodore" Leung
BITNET: twl@BROWNCS.BITNET | Box 1910, Brown University
UUCP: uunet!brunix!twl | Providence, RI 02912omh@cs.brown.edu (Owen M. Hartnett) (01/19/91)
In article <TWL.91Jan18155858@boojum.cs.brown.edu> twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) writes: >Hi.... > I've been reading in this group and in comp.sys.mac.digest about a >tool called AppMaker, which is supposedly similar to Prototyper. Can >some tell me who manufactures it, and why it is preferable to >Prototyper? > AppMaker is from Bowers development Corp., PO Box 9, Lincoln Center, MA 01773 (508) 369-8175. The author's name is Spec Bowers, who, more often than not, can be found at the Boston Computer Society's MacTechGrp meetings. I believe that AppMaker is better than Prototyper because 1) excellent code output (AppMaker's code is excellent all the way through - it's also great for someone who's just learning Mac Programming because you can look at a problem and see how AppMaker coded it) and 2) AppMaker supports the Think Class libraries - this is an excellent way to bootstrap yourself into the TCL's and 3) AppMaker will have MacApp code production very soon. Claimer: I have not seen the newest version of Prototyper, but the 1st version's code was pretty bad. Also, I know Spec Bowers through the MacTechGrp, of which I am the director, but, I won't make a dime whether you buy AppMaker or not. -Owen Owen Hartnett omh@cs.brown.edu.CSNET Brown University Computer Science omh@cs.brown.edu uunet!brunix!omh "Don't wait up for me tonight because I won't be home for a month."
c90davby@odalix.ida.liu.se (David Byers) (01/20/91)
rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel) writes: >AppMaker is by Bowers Development, (508) 369-8175. The advantage of >it over Prototyper is the clean code it generates. This advantage of >Prototyper is that you can try out the prototype while in Prototyper >where AppMaker doesn't have that ability. The code that Prototyper >generates is almost worthless to me. I like to use Prototyper to >simply prototype but never use the poor code it generates. AppMaker >on the other hangenerates nice clean code and lets you work in your >own style then being forced to use a certain method (as in Proto). I agree that Prototyper generates worthless code. After having bought it, I used it once, then went back to writing from scratch. The advantage of being able to run prototypes while in Prototyper hardly balances the disadvantage of not being able to use the code it generates. I am sure there are people who are comfortable using Prototyper; I'm just not one of them. Is it possible to compile AppMaker-generated code without having to add any of your own? >I was really disappointed with Prototyper 3.0 with the 'userevent' >method you are forced to work with. I ended up trading it for >AppMaker. Bowers has a Prototyper to AppMaker trade-in offer. >Trade-in price is under $150. What is the mailing address of Bowers Development, and can they be reached by electronic mail? Does the trade-in offer extend to users of Prototyper 2.1 as well as Prototyper 3.0? -- _____________________________________ ____________________________________ | David Byers ||SnailMail: David Byers | | Linkoping Institute of Technology || Ryds Alle 9:204 | | || S-58251 Linkoping | | c90davby@odalix.ida.liu.se || SWEDEN | | byers@nanny.lysator.liu.se || | `-------------------------------------'`------- New SnailMail Address ------'
rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel) (01/22/91)
In article <1991Jan20.151151.22107@ida.liu.se> c90davby@odalix.ida.liu.se (David Byers) writes: >Is it possible to compile AppMaker-generated code without having to >add any of your own? Yes, it will compile and run as is but doens't link windows together like Prototyper. It does require a bit more coding to get things linked together. In the long run, it is better that it lets you handle tieing everything together. > >>I was really disappointed with Prototyper 3.0 with the 'userevent' >>method you are forced to work with. I ended up trading it for >>AppMaker. Bowers has a Prototyper to AppMaker trade-in offer. >>Trade-in price is under $150. > >What is the mailing address of Bowers Development, and can they be >reached by electronic mail? Does the trade-in offer extend to users of >Prototyper 2.1 as well as Prototyper 3.0? I have a card of the Vice President of Sales and Markerting. Her name is Tonya Price; AppleLink: TONYAP; CIS: 73700,3525. You should ask her if the upgrade applies to Prototyper 2.1. Or call her at 508-369-8175.
a_dent@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (01/22/91)
In article <1991Jan20.151151.22107@ida.liu.se>, c90davby@odalix.ida.liu.se (David Byers) writes: > rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel) writes: > >>AppMaker is by Bowers Development, (508) 369-8175. The advantage of >>it over Prototyper is the clean code it generates. This advantage of >>Prototyper is that you can try out the prototype while in Prototyper >>where AppMaker doesn't have that ability. The code that Prototyper >>generates is almost worthless to me. I like to use Prototyper to >>simply prototype but never use the poor code it generates. AppMaker >>on the other hangenerates nice clean code and lets you work in your >>own style then being forced to use a certain method (as in Proto). > > I agree that Prototyper generates worthless code. After having bought > it, I used it once, then went back to writing from scratch. The I second that!! I'm only using version 2.0 (suspect that's OLD, I bought it off a pal who gave up on Pascal & took up Hypercard) and have just found it generates lovely things like calls to TENew all over the place, but never disposes those handles!!! The only nice thing I can say about the Prototyping feature is that it gives you a good idea what your dialogs will look like, and just pips ResEdit for ease of constructing them. I too am interested in hearing how far back the upgrade to AppMaker deal covers and would also like opinions on Appmaker's ability to generate code for the THINK Class Libraries. Andy Dent A.D. Software phone 09 249 2719 Mac & VAX programmer 94 Bermuda Dve, Ballajura a_dent@fennel.cc.uwa.oz Western Australia 6066 a_dent@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.AU (international)
cfejm@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (John Miller) (01/23/91)
>>>AppMaker is by Bowers Development, (508) 369-8175. The advantage of >>>it over Prototyper is the clean code it generates. This advantage of >>>Prototyper is that you can try out the prototype while in Prototyper >>>where AppMaker doesn't have that ability. The code that Prototyper >>>generates is almost worthless to me. I like to use Prototyper to >>>simply prototype but never use the poor code it generates. AppMaker >>>on the other hangenerates nice clean code and lets you work in your >>>own style then being forced to use a certain method (as in Proto). >> >> I agree that Prototyper generates worthless code. After having bought >> it, I used it once, then went back to writing from scratch. The > >I second that!! I'm only using version 2.0 (suspect that's OLD, I bought >it off a pal who gave up on Pascal & took up Hypercard) and have just found >it generates lovely things like calls to TENew all over the place, but >never disposes those handles!!! > >The only nice thing I can say about the Prototyping feature is that it gives >you a good idea what your dialogs will look like, and just pips ResEdit for >ease of constructing them. > >I too am interested in hearing how far back the upgrade to AppMaker deal covers >and would also like opinions on Appmaker's ability to generate code for the >THINK Class Libraries. > I just got an e-mail from Spike Bowers (d1721@applelink.apple.com) who indicates that the tradein covers any version of Prototyper and the cost is $147. I plan on taking him up on it. He'll also send you a comparison sheet, Prototyper-AppMaker. (I presume he won't mind my posting this) -- John John Miller Music Theory Eastern Illinois University CFEJM@UX1.CTS.EIU.EDU
egw.weakm@p3.lanl.gov (Eric Wasserman) (01/23/91)
AppMaker also allows you to modify the code generator to your liking. You do this by modifying some text resources which contain the code-generating code. I've only changed a few things myself (eg. 'NewWindow' --> 'NewCWindow') but I believe that by modifying these resources you have so much control that you could probably even get it to generate (gasp) FORTRAN. Eric egw.weakm@p3.lanl.gov
sjbury@barred.rice.edu (scott j bury) (01/24/91)
In article <1991Jan22.171604.14212@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, cfejm@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (John Miller) writes: [AppMaker vs. Prototyper stuff deleted] |> >I too am interested in hearing how far back the upgrade to AppMaker deal covers |> >and would also like opinions on Appmaker's ability to generate code for the |> >THINK Class Libraries. |> > |> |> |> I just got an e-mail from Spike Bowers (d1721@applelink.apple.com) |> who indicates that the tradein covers any version of Prototyper |> and the cost is $147. I plan on taking him up on it. He'll also |> send you a comparison sheet, Prototyper-AppMaker. |> |> (I presume he won't mind my posting this) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :-) |> -- |> John |> |> John Miller |> Music Theory |> Eastern Illinois University |> CFEJM@UX1.CTS.EIU.EDU I too just got e-mail from *Spec* Bowers , here's what he had to say about THINK Class Libraries: > AppMaker generates code (and pane resources) for the TCL. You have your choice of >traditional or object-oriented programming. According to many users, the quality of >the generated code and the support for the TCL are AppMaker's great strengths." and for planned enhancements... >Some of the most requested features are: a simulation mode for trying out a >design without first generating code, compiling, and linking; support for font, >size, style, color, etc. Both of these features will be in two versions >planned for release in the next 6-18 months. >Spec Bowers >P.S. It would be nice if you'd post the correct spelling of my name on the net. >Mine *is* an unusual name, so many people transmute it into the more common >"Spike". I'm kind of used to it, but... Perhaps, I will make a trade-in. ******************************************************************************************* scott j bury * sjbury@owlnet.rice.edu chemical engineering * " soap 'n' bugs we'll clean your dirt, cheap even." rice university * nice trees houston, texas 77251 * warm all year around ___________________________________________________________________ | rice university denies any knowledge of my opinions or thoughts | | unless it's patentable. | |__________________________________________________________________| ******************************************************************************************
guelzow@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Andreas J. Guelzow) (01/25/91)
In article <61957@brunix.UUCP> omh@cs.brown.edu (Owen M. Hartnett) writes: > 2) AppMaker supports the Think >Class libraries - this is an excellent way to bootstrap yourself into the >TCL's Well, AppMaker only supports a part of the Class Library, e.g. it can't handle nested panes and if you have a scroll pane in your window it will always cover the whole window. These restrictions seem to make no real sense, but they are there and complicate the use of AppMaker with the Think Class Library, beacause you have to change the created code around before it is useful (and then you can't go back to Appmaker to change things again>) Nevertheless, I do like the programme, but it is not really useful to learn the use of the TCL! Andreas Guelzow <guelzow@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
oster@well.sf.ca.us (David Phillip Oster) (01/25/91)
It would be so easy to take the THINK Class Library, THINK C compiler
integrated environemnt a step further, and have an integerated environment
with a program editor that let you pick menus, controls, panes, and palettes
from a palette on the screen, and paste them into an application. This
would cause the approproate code resource to get pasted into your project,
with corresponding automatically generated source files.
Almost all the code in a user's application prototype
would be short, simple glue routines to calls to standard objects.
At any time, you can subclass objects in the integerated environment's library
to create a new and richer application development tool, you could even
use a source code management system to have different versions of the
development tool on the same machine, each customized for writing different
classes of applications, and all sharing common code.
This tool would simply blow away MacApp's ViewEdit, and Next's NextStep
because it would leverage off the THINK C project idea, and the other two
environments are saddled with a traditional edit/compile/link/run development
cycle.
It would be easy to write, because once you laid the correct foundation,
it would leverage off of itself, and be easy to extend.
I know, you are going to tell me it already exists, and it is called Smalltalk.
Well, Smalltalk is good for writing Smalltalk applications, but I am
not convinced it is good for writing Mac applications. Can you do a "Make
Application" to create a stand-alone binary that doesn't have large
chunks of the authoring portion of the development system in it?
At the very least, we should be pushing our industrial-grade development
systems in this direction, instead of spending all our effort on the
micor-baytch of compiling a text file fast.
--
-- David Phillip Oster - At least the government doesn't make death worse.
-- oster@well.sf.ca.us = {backbone}!well!oster