gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (10/20/90)
----- I heard a while back about an Apple replacement for TextEdit called -- I think -- "CoreEdit", or some such. It would have, I think, removed the 32k barrier on text in TextEdit. For whatever reasons it was never put into System Software. Are we going to see anything like this in 7.x? The 32k limit on text in TextEdit is a REALLY big problem IMHO. Apple's answer is to write your own text handling routines if you want to handle over 32k; TextEdit was designed for dialog boxes. OK, but everyone KNOWS that TextEdit is used for far more than dialog boxes: it's used as a primary text processing scheme in many apps. And I think it's really a bit much for each developer to be asked to 'roll their own'; in fact, if it's easy enough for each developer to do it alone, why can't Apple do it and put it in System Software? Don't mean to sound flamey, and I know that Apple System Software folk have their hands full, but after numerous years of the 32k limit, you'd think that'd be fixed by now. :-> Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
ftanaka@Apple.COM (Forrest Tanaka) (10/22/90)
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >I heard a while back about an Apple replacement for TextEdit called -- I think >-- "CoreEdit", or some such. It would have, I think, removed the 32k barrier >on text in TextEdit. I don't have the complete story on CoreEdit, but as I understand it, it was an old, old text engine that was intended to run on top of System Software and be available to anyone who wanted to use it as a basis for a basic word processor. But it proved to be too buggy or unwieldy or both. It wasn't long before the idea died altogether. I also heard that the guts of CoreEdit were used in early versions of MacWrite. > Are we going to >see anything like this in 7.x? You definitely won't find it in 7.0, as you probably know. Personally, I'd be pretty surprised if there was anything like this in 7.anything. >OK, but everyone KNOWS that TextEdit is used for far more than dialog boxes: >it's used as a primary text processing scheme in many apps. Yes, that's true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this is a good thing. > And I think it's >really a bit much for each developer to be asked to 'roll their own'; in fact, >if it's easy enough for each developer to do it alone, why can't Apple do it >and put it in System Software? I agree that it's a bit much to ask of most developers. That's one reason that the TextEdit hooks were put in: so that developers who needed just a bit more power could add the power without needing to write their own text engine. But the TextEdit hook mechanism hasn't worked as well as most developers needed, and it certainly didn't solve the 32K limit. And it would make sense for Apple to do this, if not in System Software, then at least in a library or maybe some MacApp object library. >Don't mean to sound flamey, and I know that Apple System Software folk have >their hands full, but after numerous years of the 32k limit, you'd think that'd >be fixed by now. :-> Yes, you'd think. But as usual, it's a matter of limited resources. I know a few people at Apple who'd agree with every point you make, and I can surely guess that there're a lot more. So, I don't know what to tell you besides, don't lose all hope. At least some Apple engineers understand your frustration and others, and I would guess that they'll eventually get something together, but it might take a while. >============================================================================ >= gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = >= * all my opinions are * compute" = >= * mine * -Kraftwerk = >============================================================================ -- Forrest Tanaka Graphics/Toolbox Developer Technical Support Apple Computer, Inc. ftanaka@apple.com In a decent computer language, a non-programmer could look at elegantly-written code and see the beauty.
oster@well.sf.ca.us (David Phillip Oster) (10/25/90)
Apple lived up to its early promise, and I've got a copy of Core Edit. Core
Edit implements paragraphs of styled text, is a mass of assembly language,
and is quite buggy. It is not script manager compatible (not surprisingly)
and can only handle 1 paragraph of text, you have to write the interpragraph
stuff yourself. Except for support for the original Macwrite's ruler bar:
(tabs, indented or outdented first line) it doesn't do any more than styled
text edit, as documented by Inside mac Vol 5, and as available on all Macs,
except the Mac XL, the Mac 128, and the Classic Mac 512k (unenhanced, not to
be confused with the Mac Classic). Since it isn't script manager comaptible,
it does considerable less than the current styled text edit.
For my own use, I've written a dummy application that uses OOP so that
a single conditional compile flips it from old TextEdit to Core Edit to
new, styled Text Edit. I can tell you from personal experience that styled
Text Edit is more solid than Core Edit.
One of the few comments in the source of Core Edit says:
;; Papa Wigginton's genuine spaghetti code (now that's Italian)
--
-- David Phillip Oster - Note new signature. Old one has gone Bye Bye.
-- oster@well.sf.ca.us = {backbone}!well!osterech@cbnewsk.att.com (ned.horvath) (10/26/90)
From article <21346@well.sf.ca.us>, by oster@well.sf.ca.us (David Phillip Oster): > Apple lived up to its early promise, and I've got a copy of Core Edit. Core > Edit implements paragraphs of styled text, is a mass of assembly language, > and is quite buggy... > > One of the few comments in the source of Core Edit says: > ;; Papa Wigginton's genuine spaghetti code (now that's Italian) As a followup: I went out and picked up DataPak's "Word Solutions" engine. At $300 it may sound pricey, but there are no royalties for incorporation in products, so the added functionality it added and the time it saved m was worth it. I did spend about three days wrapping it up as a CEditText workalike so that I could use it with Think C 4.0 and the TCL (most of that trying to figure out how to connect with scrollpanes correctly). It's fast, it works, and I don't have to think about it any more. I don't know better praise than that for a toolbox extension. I've not tested DataPak's add-ons for WS: they offer a Rulers and a Virtual add-on -- the latter removes the RAM-limited restrictions on the WS engine by saving temp files to disk. But if I need 'em, I hope they work as well as the base product. =Ned Horvath=
mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (10/26/90)
In article <1990Oct25.171219.11636@cbnewsk.att.com> ech@cbnewsk.att.com (ned.horvath) writes: > >As a followup: I went out and picked up DataPak's "Word Solutions" engine. >At $300 it may sound pricey, but there are no royalties for incorporation >in products, so the added functionality it added and the time it saved m > was worth it. I did spend about three days wrapping it up as a CEditText >workalike so that I could use it with Think C 4.0 and the TCL (most of that >trying to figure out how to connect with scrollpanes correctly). > I also have datapak's WS engine. Any chance of your sharing the CEditClass you modified? >=Ned Horvath= -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora | my Mac Matt_Mora@sri.com SRI International | my unix mxmora@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________
matt@pacvax.UUCP (Matt Kingman) (10/30/90)
In article <17629@unix.SRI.COM> mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) writes: > I also have datapak's WS engine. Any chance of your sharing the CEditClass > you modified? Ditto. That would be great! /Matt --- Matt Kingman - Macintosh Software Engineer Pacer Software Inc. - Westboro, MA 01581 Disclaimer: I speak only for myself.....
west@turing.toronto.edu (Tom West) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Oct25.171219.11636@cbnewsk.att.com> ech@cbnewsk.att.com (ned.horvath) writes: >From article <21346@well.sf.ca.us>, by oster@well.sf.ca.us (David Phillip Oster): >> Apple lived up to its early promise, and I've got a copy of Core Edit. Core >> Edit implements paragraphs of styled text, is a mass of assembly language, >> and is quite buggy... >> >> One of the few comments in the source of Core Edit says: >> ;; Papa Wigginton's genuine spaghetti code (now that's Italian) > >As a followup: I went out and picked up DataPak's "Word Solutions" engine. >At $300 it may sound pricey, but there are no royalties for incorporation >in products, so the added functionality it added and the time it saved m > was worth it. I did spend about three days wrapping it up as a CEditText >workalike so that I could use it with Think C 4.0 and the TCL (most of that >trying to figure out how to connect with scrollpanes correctly). > >It's fast, it works, and I don't have to think about it any more. I don't >know better praise than that for a toolbox extension. I also have used DataPak's software. It works and they have fantastic customer support. I have never been treated as well as I have by them. They faxed *good* technical doc when I asked for it, took the order quickly, delivered it quickly, phoned (to Canada!) to make sure I had received it, phoned an acknowledgement of the receipt of the registration card!! They sent a free update entirely unexpectedly and phoned once more a month or two later to ask if I had any problems and whether I was interested in the extension packages. I have only the highest praise for their product and the company. I only hope they start making other packages that I can use. Tom West Disclaimer: I'm only a satisfied customer who is amazed at being treated well by companies that one is trying to buy from.