39clocks@violet.berkeley.edu (10/11/89)
MPW C++ beta available at APDA for $175.00? :--(
Are the folks at APDA mad?
A little perspective: I called APDA today to find out about upgrading my MPW C
v2 system to v3 with C++. You see, I mistakenly thought back earlier in the
year when v3 of MPW came out and Apple announced that C++ would be available in
the fall of this year that I should wait until C++ was available to purchase
v3. I figured that Apple would probably have to realease a new C compiler (v3.5
or somesuch) to provide compatibility with the new C++ preprocessor and I
really didn't want to be stung by another upgrade fee. Somehow I imagined, get
this, that APDA would just include C++ with the compiler. You know, sort of
like (Object) pascal...You don't have to pay extra for the OOP capability,
unless the assumption is that using MacApp is the only practical way of using
object pascal.
So I called APDA, and here's what they say... C++ is available in first beta
form for $175.00 and it is not offered in any packages with the other MPW
parts. At least not initially.
The pricing for my upgrade from MPW v2 to MPW v3 w/C++ now looks thus:
MPW C update bundle $195 (almost 3x that of THINKC!)
C++ 175
------
$370 (binders not included)
If I were buying MPW C & C++ for the first time the cost would be $575 (binders
included). All this and it still ain't ANSI.
I've heard a lot about MPW C++ providing compatability with MacApp, do I have
to buy MacApp to enjoy its features (add another $100) or is the compatibility
built into a set of C++ libraries that come with the product? Does it come
that Interface Builder dohicky, or similar product, that Steve Jobs packages
with each Next machine?
I'm sure that Apple now has the only fully compliant C++ available for the Mac
at the moment but I fear that APDA's pricing is going to throw the ball right
into the court of the competition. Right now I think I'm better off waiting
for version 5 of THINKC (probably another $69 upgrade) or a C++ product for MPW
from Manx (AZTEC C++ ?).
I'm also sure that APDA will sell a lot of these puppies. All those corporate,
price is no concern, accounts.
Well I hope that Apple has a convincing reason why I should be using their C++
product. We're talking a major decrease in development time or ease of
programming. Maybe a promise that the MPW upgrade providing system 7
functionality/compatibility won't cost an arm and a leg!
Whew. Peter Marinacmalczews@girtab.usc.edu (Frank Malczewski) (10/11/89)
$175, huh? Yep, it looks like I've just gotten off the MPW bandwagon. If that is what the C++ costs, I can just imagine what the other upgrades that accompany that go for... I think I will be very happy with whatever Symantec comes up with from now on ;-) Allegro Common Lisp, now that might be a different story; what price for the 1.3 upgrade, praytell? -- -- Frank Malczewski (malczews@girtab.usc.edu)
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (10/12/89)
In article <5680@merlin.usc.edu> malczews@girtab.usc.edu (Frank Malczewski) writes: > $175, huh? Yep, it looks like I've just gotten off the MPW bandwagon. If that > is what the C++ costs, I can just imagine what the other upgrades that accompany > that go for... Going from MPW 2.x to MPW 3.x is kinda painful, but it's a transition that a lot of people will want to make for more reasons than just to run C++; I'd recommend it if you're an MPW user anyway. And if you're getting into MPW for the first time, I think you're actually better off this way (ironic; I generally prefer to see our long-time users get some benefit out of that, but hey, I don't determine APDA pricing). C++ at $175? Seems excessive to me until I think about paying the engineers who wrote it. It ain't like Object Pascal, folks, in the sense that it's a pre-processor that still requires the C compiler to work. We don't just stick 'em together because not everyone WANTS C++ and to bundle CFront and C would drive the total price up, and the non-C++ C programmers would complain even more loudly about the price (and rightly so, IMHO). What can I tell you? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the MPW system is competitive with other professional development systems for other platforms; try putting together a complete IBM development environment sometime (compiler, linker, editor, debugger, make utility, etc.) Our target market for MPW is NOT the interested amateur; it's the programmer who actually NEEDS what MPW has. This doesn't mean that the other environments are incapable of creating commercial code; I know better than that. It DOES mean that NONE of the other environments give you what MPW gives you (phenomenal power, flexibility, and extensibility and truly horrendous performance). As for C++, I wouldn't expect anything very cheap very fast from any of the other guys, either, although a native C++ compiler from THINK would thrill me no end... __________________________________________________________________________ Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that they believe what I believe or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________
time@oxtrap.oxtrap.UUCP (Tim Endres) (10/12/89)
In article <4672@internal.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes:
Our target market for MPW is NOT the interested amateur; it's the
programmer who actually NEEDS what MPW has.
Finally, the truth. And don't ever change this, please!
If you are asking why you "need" MPW, or why it is so "pricey",
*then buy something else*. I could NOT live without MPW.amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (10/12/89)
In article <4672@internal.Apple.COM>, chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: > Going from MPW 2.x to MPW 3.x is kinda painful, but it's a transition that > a lot of people will want to make for more reasons than just to run C++; Indeed. The C compiler alone has all sorts of new kinds of bugs, but it makes up for it with some really nifty error messages... I can understand Apple not wanting to pay royalties to Green Hills for their C compiler, and MPW C 3.0 has some things I would have killed for in 2.0.2, but at least the old compiler tended to compile valid C code correctly, even if the effective address calculations got a little complex... Someone forgot to leave the "B" in the version number :-(... > NONE of the other environments give > you what MPW gives you (phenomenal power, flexibility, and extensibility > and truly horrendous performance). True on all counts :-). > As for C++, I wouldn't expect anything very cheap very fast from any of > the other guys, either, although a native C++ compiler from THINK would > thrill me no end... Hmm. I'd rather have a good, solid Cfront and C from Apple. -- Amanda Walker amanda@intercon.com
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (10/12/89)
In article <1482@intercon.com> amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > In article <4672@internal.Apple.COM>, chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: > > Going from MPW 2.x to MPW 3.x is kinda painful, but it's a transition that > > a lot of people will want to make for more reasons than just to run C++; > > Indeed. The C compiler alone has all sorts of new kinds of bugs, but it > makes up for it with some really nifty error messages... > > I can understand Apple not wanting to pay royalties to Green Hills for > their C compiler, and MPW C 3.0 has some things I would have killed for > in 2.0.2, but at least the old compiler tended to compile valid C code > correctly, even if the effective address calculations got a little > complex... Someone forgot to leave the "B" in the version number :-(... What can I say? Speaking of "true on all counts..." It's frankly kind of a joke within my department (MacDTS--Macintosh Developer Technical Support) (and sorry about this, Keithen!), but you should hear the catcalls when we get an EMail reporting yet another C bug. "No! You're KIDDING!" "MPW C IS a bug!" "Can we please put this compiler out of our misery?" and others... In article <1482@intercon.com> amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > > As for C++, I wouldn't expect anything very cheap very fast from any of > > the other guys, either, although a native C++ compiler from THINK would > > thrill me no end... > > Hmm. I'd rather have a good, solid Cfront and C from Apple. CFront is actually more solid that AT&T's that we ported it from (that is, we fixed a lot of AT&T bugs), and I have to agree with your desire for a more solid C. Luckily (?), MPW 3.1 IS on its way soon, to an APDA near you. P.S. I think my favorite C error message is "You can't: change the type of a constant, win a battle with the IRS, or satisfy this compiler." __________________________________________________________________________ Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that they believe what I believe or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________
shebanow@Apple.COM (Andrew Shebanow) (10/12/89)
I should point out that the C++ release includes an updated C compiler with hundreds of bug fixes. This isn't something we're particularly proud of, but it is there. As far as stability goes, I think you'll find that Apple's C++ (even at b1 stage) is much more stable than ANY other CFront 2.0 based product. We've fixed a lot of serious bugs that AT&T missed in 2.0 final, we've gotten rid of a lot of bugs which caused "core dumps" on UNIX and crashes on the Mac, and we implemented a some C++ features that AT&T's version just shrugs its shoulders on and says "sorry, not implemented". By the way, I can now happily report that APDA actually mailed out the first C++ packages today, so it is (finally) a real product! Andrew Shebanow Macintosh Developer Technical Support Apple Computer, Inc.
amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (10/12/89)
In article <4686@internal.Apple.COM>, chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: > Luckily (?), MPW 3.1 IS on its way soon, to an APDA near > you. YAY! Now, the question is, will APDA have the gall to charge for the update? When we called them this spring, they seemed to think they were going to... That would be *really* annoying. -- Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.com> "Tobacco is the only drug in America that will kill you if it's taken as directed." --Dr. C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (10/13/89)
In article <1483@intercon.com> amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > In article <4686@internal.Apple.COM>, chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: > > Luckily (?), MPW 3.1 IS on its way soon, to an APDA near > > you. > > YAY! Now, the question is, will APDA have the gall to charge for the update? > When we called them this spring, they seemed to think they were going to... > > That would be *really* annoying. > > -- > Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.com> > > "Tobacco is the only drug in America that will kill you if it's taken > as directed." --Dr. C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General Charge for an update from 3.0 to 3.1??? Given APDA's history, I wouldn't be surprised, but anything more than documentation and shipping charges (i.e. about $30) would be highway robbery; 3.1 has no significant new functionality over 3.0. And what a GREAT quote that is, Amanda. :-) __________________________________________________________________________ Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that they believe what I believe or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________
bonnett@umd5.umd.edu (David Bonnett) (10/13/89)
>I should point out that the C++ release includes an updated C compiler >with hundreds of bug fixes. Well, what about those of us who laid out the money for C 3.0? What is the blood owed for a version that works most of the time (as opposed to occasionally) Can we get a nice cheap (free) update disk? Nah no way..... -dave bonnett; A renegade mac programmer in a sea of blue. bonnett@umd5.umd.edu
shebanow@Apple.COM (Andrew Shebanow) (10/13/89)
MPW 3.1 (Final) is currently being built. It should be available from APDA in 4-8 weeks (after testing gets through with it, etc etc etc). It will include a new C compiler which is better than the one included with MPW C++. I don't know what the APDA upgrade policy to MPW 3.1 will be, but I hope that the price will be reasonable (or even, God forbid, free). If you can't wait for final, find a friend with C++ and borrow (remember, only you can prevent software piracy) a copy of the C compiler to tide you over until 3.1 final is out. And, by the way, lighten up dudes, Andy Shebanow Psychic To The Stars, MacDTS Apple Computer, Inc. Disclaimer: These opinions are my own, and not those of Apple Computer, etc
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (10/13/89)
In article <4720@internal.Apple.COM>, shebanow@Apple.COM (Andrew Shebanow) writes... >MPW 3.1 (Final) is currently being built. It should be available from APDA >in 4-8 weeks (after testing gets through with it, etc etc etc). It will Is this version 3.1 of the shell, too, or just the C compiler? If it's the shell also, will APDA sell 3.1 upgrades to people who bought their orignal MPW 3.0 shell through TML (or other bundles), or do we need to do it through the manufacturer from whom we bought the bundle? Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = crsp_ra@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) (10/14/89)
Dear Robert - We license the MPW Shell to the various folks that ship it with their tools that run under MPW. Therefore, you have purchased that product from the 3rd party and will have to work out your upgrade with that 3rd party. Therefore, if you bought the MPW Shell and TML Pascal from TML, you will have to get an MPW 3.1 upgrade from TML. -- Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. CSNET: jordan@apple.CSNET Development Tools Product Management AppleLink: Mattson1 20525 Mariani Avenue, MS 27S Cupertino, CA 95014 408-974-4601 "Joy is the serious business of heaven." C.S. Lewis