a_dent@vaxa.uwa.oz (Andy Dent, ph: 09 380 2620) (03/20/89)
I'm looking for general comments on using MacApp, particularly with either
Object Pascal and Object Assembler.
1) What's the speed like on a MacPlus?
- is it heavily dependent on CPU power or on disk speed?
- if more memory helps, has anyone tried Virtual ?
2) What Pascal's are out there that are compatible with MacApp?
3) How hard is it to use Object Assembler? I got the impression that MacApp
only requires you to write relatively small amounts of code and so using
Assembler might not be too painful?
4) Are there any incompatibilities with System 6?keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (03/21/89)
In article <568190@vaxa.uwa.oz> a_dent@vaxa.uwa.oz (Andy Dent, ph: 09 380 2620) writes: >I'm looking for general comments on using MacApp, particularly with either >Object Pascal and Object Assembler. > >1) What's the speed like on a MacPlus? > - is it heavily dependent on CPU power or on disk speed? > - if more memory helps, has anyone tried Virtual ? One of the myths about MacApp is that it is a dinosaur (big and slow). While it can be considered as large, this is due to the amount of functionality it gives you. Also, I wouldn't consider it slow, even on a Mac Plus. Most of the time, the timing critical stuff is done in your own source code. Therefore, if your MacApp program is slow, it would have been slow anyway. There is one area where MacApp could be considered slow, though, and that is in scrolling. The overhead for setting up clipping to views can take a while. If you are scrolling 2 or three views at once, your might notice speed problems. However, MacApp DOES try its best to solve this by caching the Focused settings when it can. Also, don't take this as an indication that you *WILL* notice speed problems; just that you *MIGHT*. >2) What Pascal's are out there that are compatible with MacApp? Both TML and Think have Object Pascals. However, TML's is the closest to being able to compile MacApp (I think that only a few changes to the MacApp source are needed). Think Pascal 2.0 cannot compile MacApp due to the different ways segmentation is handled. (Rich, if I'm wrong, please correct me) Uh, these are both in addition, of course, to MPW Pascal. >3) How hard is it to use Object Assembler? I got the impression that MacApp > only requires you to write relatively small amounts of code and so using > Assembler might not be too painful? There is only one person that I know of that uses Object Assembler, and that is Rick Wong at Stanford. If there are others out there, I'd like to hear about your experiences. >4) Are there any incompatibilities with System 6? Not that I've heard of. We've also received fan mail here at Apple from people who say that they have tested out their software under A/UX with no problems at all! Without even writing their program with A/UX in mind. You may not get some functionality if you are using MacApp 1.1.1. For instance, I don't think that 1.1.1 was MultiFinder aware, and it didn't call WaitNext- Event (I'm not sure though - I don't have my sources handy). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions
rick@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rick Wong) (03/23/89)
In article <27618@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >In article <568190@vaxa.uwa.oz> a_dent@vaxa.uwa.oz (Andy Dent, ph: 09 380 2620) writes: >>I'm looking for general comments on using MacApp, particularly with either >>Object Pascal and Object Assembler. >> >>3) How hard is it to use Object Assembler? I got the impression that MacApp >> only requires you to write relatively small amounts of code and so using >> Assembler might not be too painful? > >There is only one person that I know of that uses Object Assembler, and that is >Rick Wong at Stanford. If there are others out there, I'd like to hear about >your experiences. > Since I've been singled out, I guess I should follow up. The biggest problem with using Object Assembler is mixing it with Object Pascal and keeping all your assembly class definitions in synch with your Pascal class definitions. The only interfaces Apple supplies for it are to TObject, so you can't call any methods belonging to TApplication, TView, or whatever, unless you write your own interfaces to them. Since hardly anyone uses Object Assembler, I don't blame Apple for not supplying such interfaces -- having to keep all that stuff up to date would probably slow down the Excellent work the MacApp group has been doing. (By the way, Keith, ObjMacros.a still hasn't been fixed in MPW 3.0.) It's misleading to assume that MacApp only requires you to write small amounts of code. Rather, it saves you the work of having to write most of the Macintosh-specific stuff, like window-handling, menu-handling, scrolling, memory management, filing, and so on. You're still going to have to write the code specific to your application. I would recommend using Object Pascal for 99% of your MacApp programming. I would only use assembly for especially time-critical sections of code. Even then, it's probably best to write some "wrapper" method in Pascal, which would then call a plain ol' assembly routine, passing it whatever fields it needed as regular parameters on the stack. You should not let MacApp's supposed slowness dissuade you from using it. Most talk about MacApp being slow is based on the molassicity (sorry) of applications built with MacApp's debugging gear. Without debugging, MacApp's speed really is comparable to that of an application developed in an "old-fashioned" language. Rick "No, it's Hair Pie" Wong Courseware Authoring Tools Project, Stanford University rick@jessica.stanford.edu
gwills@maths.tcd.ie (Graham Wills) (03/24/89)
In article <27618@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >In article <568190@vaxa.uwa.oz> a_dent@vaxa.uwa.oz (Andy Dent, ph: 09 380 2620) writes: >>I'm looking for general comments on using MacApp, particularly with either >>Object Pascal and Object Assembler. >> >>1) What's the speed like on a MacPlus? >> - is it heavily dependent on CPU power or on disk speed? >> - if more memory helps, has anyone tried Virtual ? > >One of the myths about MacApp is that it is a dinosaur (big and slow). While it >can be considered as large, this is due to the amount of functionality it >gives you. Also, I wouldn't consider it slow, even on a Mac Plus. > I've been writing a spatial data analysis - graphic - package using MacApp. I had previously written a large time series data analysis program of the same style using MPW Pascal. My conclusions about the difference ? The Std. Pascal program is about 33% smaller than the MacApp one probably will be at a similar development stage. The MacApp program is *much* easier to read, understand, bug-fix, etc. The MacApp program is *slightly faster* overall. This is due to the fact that when writing code, you tend to add features to it one at a time as you implement them (Now I'll write cut&paste, now import/export). This means you tend to write patches, Ifs, cases and other not-so-hot code. This code is usually not part of an overall plan, so it is slower and more difficult to maintain. MacApp is slower for doing fancy graphic stuff using objects, and can cause memory problems if you have too many objects... Overall, I keep looking at my old program and thinking " Now, if this were MacApp, I could .... " One caveat, using MPW on a Plus is not fun. Compile and Link times are a wee bit long. I'd stick to Lightspeed on a Plus, but try very hard to justify a SE/030 to run MPW... and MacApp. -Graham Wills, TCD, Ireland.
a_dent@vaxa.uwa.oz (Andy Dent, ph: 09 380 2620) (03/28/89)
In article <27618@apple.Apple.COM>, keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >>1) What's the speed like on a MacPlus? > > One of the myths about MacApp is that it is a dinosaur (big and slow). While it > can be considered as large, this is due to the amount of functionality it > gives you. Also, I wouldn't consider it slow, even on a Mac Plus. Most of the > time, the timing critical stuff is done in your own source code. Therefore, if > your MacApp program is slow, it would have been slow anyway. Sorry, slight misunderstanding here - I have read the comments about application performance before - I was looking for comments on compile-time/linking. >>2) What Pascal's are out there that are compatible with MacApp? > > Both TML and Think have Object Pascals. However, TML's is the closest to > being able to compile MacApp (I think that only a few changes to the MacApp > source are needed). Think Pascal 2.0 cannot compile MacApp due to the > different ways segmentation is handled. (Rich, if I'm wrong, please correct me) > > Uh, these are both in addition, of course, to MPW Pascal. If (with a few changes) you can compile and link TML Pascal with MacApp, does that give you a means of using MacApp without MPW? (I am rather put off by the vast cost of MPW.) General question: What happened to Object-Oriented Programming for the rest of us (ie: Low-budget/Bright-ideas/Potential-genii)
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (04/01/89)
In article <568218@vaxa.uwa.oz> a_dent@vaxa.uwa.oz (Andy Dent, ph: 09 380 2620) writes: |In article <27618@apple.Apple.COM>, keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: |>>2) What Pascal's are out there that are compatible with MacApp? |> |> Both TML and Think have Object Pascals. However, TML's is the closest to |> being able to compile MacApp (I think that only a few changes to the MacApp |> source are needed). . . . | |If (with a few changes) you can compile and link TML Pascal with MacApp, does |that give you a means of using MacApp without MPW? (I am rather put off by |the vast cost of MPW.) This refers to TML Pascal II (now at version 3.0, to match MPW), which does require MPW. It comes with MPW (without assembler, SADE, etc); MacConnection is listing it at $125 or less (I think). It includes the two volumes of Apple MPW documentation and all the non-language-specific utilities as well as the Shell. |General question: | |What happened to Object-Oriented Programming for the rest of us |(ie: Low-budget/Bright-ideas/Potential-genii) Well, the above mentioned environment does give you an object pascal for ~$125, if you want to write your own superstructure instead of buying MacApp. Disclaimer: I don't know anything about MacApp or much about anything, really. (I do have TMLP II, awaiting my 3.0 update.) /JBL = UUCP: {backbone}!bbn!levin POTS: (617) 873-3463 INTERNET: levin@bbn.com
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (04/01/89)
In article <568218@vaxa.uwa.oz> a_dent@vaxa.uwa.oz (Andy Dent, ph: 09 380 2620) writes: > Sorry, slight misunderstanding here - I have read the comments about application > performance before - I was looking for comments on compile-time/linking. The first version of MacApp was developed on a MacPlus (actually, we started on a Lisa), since there were no Mac IIs in those days. I have to admit, however, that I don't use a MacPlus for development now. I think using a MacPlus will be possible, although it will probably be a bit slow (perhaps 5 minutes to recompile after a small change). You only have to compile MacApp once. > If (with a few changes) you can compile and link TML Pascal with MacApp, does > that give you a means of using MacApp without MPW? (I am rather put off by > the vast cost of MPW.) The TML compiler still runs as an MPW tool, but you get the necessary stuff with the compiler. This does provide a lower-cost means of using MacApp. > What happened to Object-Oriented Programming for the rest of us > (ie: Low-budget/Bright-ideas/Potential-genii) Both TML Pascal II and THINK Pascal 2.0 are low-cost. Both provide object-oriented programming, although onlt TML provides MacApp support today. Symantec is still working on MacApp support for THINK Pascal 2.0. Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. Object Specialist Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1