Jim.Spencer@p5.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Spencer) (03/17/90)
>Inc.). A unique class browser has also been added to THINK Pascal Version >3.0. These new features enable THINK Pascal to provide users with the most >comprehensive support for object-oriented programming (OOP) of any Pascal >environment for the Macintosh available today. > >"As a leader in the Macintosh language market, we recognize the demand for a >product that eases the transition to object-oriented programming," said >Gordon E. Eubanks, Jr., president and CEO. "THINK Pascal's sophisticated >class library and tools such as the class browser are critical to making OOP >more accessible to programmers." Just out of curiousity, how is the Think browsing tool superior to MADA's Browser or Apple's Mouser? -- Jim Spencer - via FidoNet node 1:282/33 UUCP: ...!uunet!imagery!22.5!Jim.Spencer ARPA: Jim.Spencer@p5.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (03/20/90)
In article <39.26037AF9@imagery.FIDONET.ORG> Jim.Spencer@p5.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Spencer) writes: > >Just out of curiousity, how is the Think browsing tool superior to MADA's Browser or Apple's Mouser? The THINK Pascal browser displays your class hierarchy as a graphical structure (a tree), and you can use the tab and arrow keys to navigate the hierarchy. You can also type in the first few letters of a classe's name, and the browser will match the class you're looking for. Also, the browser is much more intimately connected to the editor; you can option-double-click on a method name, and the browser will take you to that method if it's monomorphic, or highlight the classes which implement that method. R. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "When someone who makes four hundred and fifty dollars an hour wants to tell you something for free, it's a good idea to listen." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mcdonald@fornax.UUCP (Ken Mcdonald) (03/20/90)
(Bunch of stuff about the THINK class browser deleted) Not wanting you to give away company secrets, Rich (:-) ) but can you give us C users an idea of when the equivalent upgrades might be made to THINK C? On the money thing, I must confess that I, too, find the upgrade price for THINK Pascal rather too high to tempt me. I own both Pascal (which I bought originally, because I knew the language) and C (which I bought when Pascal's typing proved too restrictive.) Could Symantec consider a further discount for us people who would like to have both environments, but will not do so if they have to pay full price on both? As a final note, one of the problems I remember with the last release of THINK Pascal was that, in spite of promised object support, the documentation was just not satisfactory to support this claim. (In spite of all the work I'm sure Symantec did put in on it.) If my memory is correct (and correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a long time since I've even looked at the Pascal), this also strikes me as cause for complaint-- Symantec should not be charging that steep of an upgrade price to deliver to users a feature they claimed for a previous version, when that previous version, for most practical uses, did not support said feature. 'Nuff said. Ken McDonald mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (03/22/90)
In article <439@fornax.UUCP> mcdonald@fornax.UUCP (Ken Mcdonald) writes: > >(Bunch of stuff about the THINK class browser deleted) > >Not wanting you to give away company secrets, Rich (:-) ) but can you >give us C users an idea of when the equivalent upgrades might be made >to THINK C? Sorry, I can't. >when Pascal's typing proved too restrictive.) Could Symantec consider >a further discount for us people who would like to have both environments, >but will not do so if they have to pay full price on both? I can pass that on... >As a final note, one of the problems I remember with the last release >of THINK Pascal was that, in spite of promised object support, the >documentation was just not satisfactory to support this claim. (In spite >of all the work I'm sure Symantec did put in on it.) If my memory is >correct (and correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a long time since I've >even looked at the Pascal), this also strikes me as cause for complaint-- >Symantec should not be charging that steep of an upgrade price to deliver >to users a feature they claimed for a previous version, when that previous >version, for most practical uses, did not support said feature. The documentation was somewhat weak on Object Pascal, but nevertheless, object Pascal was supported - the same object Pascal which is supported in MPW. What is new in 3.0 is the fact that the more commonly used MPW Pascal extensions are supported, and some architectural changes were made in the representation of classes and methods, both towards the end of supporting MacApp. R. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "When someone who makes four hundred and fifty dollars an hour wants to tell you something for free, it's a good idea to listen." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~