39clocks@violet.berkeley.edu (05/06/90)
In article <8014@goofy.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes: >In article <1990May2.071040.19290@agate.berkeley.edu> >39clocks@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >> >> Now if I am programming in C, why would I want Pascal? Because I want to >> use MPW C++ interfaces to MACAPP so that I can write programs >lickity-split >> style. MACAPP, of course, is written in Pascal. Don't get me wrong, I > >You don't need Pascal to use MacApp from C++. The MacApp release comes >with pre-built libraries (debug & non-debug versions) so that you >don't have to build MacApp from the Pascal sources. > >You would need to build MacApp if you need some other configuration (68020 >specific, for example), or you can get the MacApp CD-ROM, which comes with >a wider variety of pre-built configurations (and is cheaper, I believe). I was not aware that MacApp was available on CD-ROM. >> great (or so I hear), but the real issue here is that there is no >> object library available for MPW C++, _yet_! > >What's the issue? You can use MacApp from C++. There's no class library >that specifically tailored to C++, but that's not much of an issue in >using MacApp. >yourself to Object Pascal compatible objects, and you can still use >"native" C++ objects in you program's internals if you want > Actually, what I meant to say was that there wasn't an object library written in C or C++ available for MPW C++, _yet_. And I absolutely agree with you Larry, that it doesn't matter, since there is no problem using MacApp objects in a C++ program. What I was really trying to get at was APDA's tactics in getting people to buy languages that they might not need. My gripe has a lot to do with a couple of paragraphs on page 49 of the Spring APDAlog (I haven't received the Summer issue yet and I have not called APDA to find out what products not listed in the Spring catalog are now available). Those paragraphs read, in part, as follows: "In addition to the standard update offerings, we are introducing "The Macintosh Programmer's Workshop," a CD-ROM based version of our popular MPW C and Object Pascal Bundle. This special CD-ROM update is offered at a 50 percent discount...It is also the media with which we will be adding value to MPW in future releases. "Since "The Macintosh Programmer's Workshop" is available only to owners of the MPW C and Object Pascal Bundle, we are offering two special update products...[that]...allow customers who already own the MPW C Bundle or the MPW Object Pascal Bundle to update to "The MPW" while also purchasing the appropriate language." My understanding of this is that there is a MPW CD-ROM, but the only way you can get it is to own or buy both C and Pascal. Hence my recommendation that Apple put together a CD that could be purchased by either C or Pascal people, the solution being not to put the actual compiler tools on the CD. I know that what I am about to say may be concidered by some to be a little trite, or even cheap, but IMHO I really think that APDA would be doing all C++ programmers and future C++ programmers a great service if they provided a MacApp object library, it doesn't even have to be several versions, along with MPW C++, or on the "The MPW" CD-ROM. If people want MacApp sources to play around with then they can go ahead and purchase MacApp and MPW Pascal. It seems to me that usually when you buy a compiler you get a library. In some cases, and usually at additional expense, you also receive the source to the library. The same is often true of third-party libraries. For most people, access to the source code is not really all that important, as long as they can be reasonably certain that the routines in the library are bug free. So my question is this. If Apple is going to sell MPW on CD-ROM, a media that has the potential to store a hell of a lot of info (what is it 600 megs?), then it would probably good idea to put as much of the workshop onto that CD as they possible could without preventing them from selling C,C++,Pascal, MacApp,(and I guess Asm), as separate products. If you think about it, even the MacApp sources could be included on the disk as long as they were stored in a proprietary format (I like sauced, as in apple...?), and the MPW Tool utility providing access to the sources was only available with MacApp. I am not even sure that having a separate MacApp CD-ROM is in the best interest of MacApp users because producing such a specialized disk might limit the frequency with which Apple can justify updating it. If there is a single CD that is sold to purchasers of any of the compilers or C++/MacApp, obviously Apple is going to sell a lot more of them, and they can be updated on a more frequent basis. Finally, maybe Apple should consider releasing MacApp from its status as a separate product and begin to think of it as part of the general MPW distribution. And, maybe, the CD-ROM is the vehicle that would make it possible. Documentation for it would be on the disk of course, no need to dup, package and ship all that paper. I think I could get used to not having to find a place to shelve my, oh what is it, about 2-1/2 feet worth of MPW binders. Large hard drives are getting cheaper, CD-ROM players are getting cheaper. Come on guys, make a move. Peter Marinac