scott@h-three.UUCP (scott) (08/25/88)
I've a few questions regarding Mac program development tools : What are the best software development tools for the Mac ? Which generates faster code: MPW c or MPW Pascal ? What are the relative advantages+disads for using MPW compilers instead of third-party c and Pascal compilers ? I hope I haven't started any religious wars. Your assistance is greatly appreciated ! -- Scott H. Crenshaw scott%h-three@uunet.uu.net h-three Systems Corporation uunet!h-three!scott POB 12557 100 Park Drive Suite 204 Research Triangle Park, NC 27607 (919) 549-8334
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (08/26/88)
>What software tools are there? There are many resource compilers that read data files in pseudo - assembly and generate resource files for your application. ResEdit lets you edit resources directly. A few companies have application generators (user interface generators). If you write a lot of user interface stuff, these programs are well worth the money. Also, there are at least 3 user-interface code packages, some free, some commercial (FaceIt). These give you a "vanilla" window & do simple stuff with just a handful of procedure calls. >What are the advantages disadvantages of MPW c/pascal v.s. 3rd party? The third party languages generally compile very fast. Code generation is moderately good, but nowhere near "optimal". In particular, LightspeedC compiles at 15,000-48,000 lines per minute (Mac+/II), which is just phenomenal. LightspeedC is the best C compiler for "exploratory programming" I have ever seen, since it will generally recompile & launch a 1-line change in under 5 seconds! And now it is one of the first Mac/C languages with a symbolic debugger. Lightspeed C's major blind spot is that its make utility ONLY compiles files -- it won't compile resources, stuff object code into resources, etc. This is royal pain for advanced projects (device drivers), and wastes the compilation speed-advantage. To solve this problem, buy: MPW compilers. These are generally thought to have the best code generation of all the mac compilers, but only by a small margin. But it (supposedly) takes about half a minute for the compiler do anything at all. So rebuilds are very slow. But you can extend the MPW environment with additional tools, something lacking from LightspeedC (next edition, Pllleeaassse Rich?) Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801 ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,ihnp4,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies
dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen) (08/28/88)
In article <304@h-three.UUCP> scott@h-three.UUCP (scott) writes: >What are the best software development tools for the Mac ? > The best tools have yet to be written. >Which generates faster code: MPW c or MPW Pascal ? MPW Pascal and MPW C each have advantages in the benchmarks. It just depends upon which benchmark you run. C is relatively good at global register allocation, while Pascal does not seem to emit long streams of senseless instructions (move a,b move b,a type of things) which C does. Its a tossup. I am sure the features of the languages are much more important than the performance of either one. MPW Pascal is easier to use for non-standard CODE like DAs, INITs and the like because it generates less global data than C. >What are the relative advantages+disads for using MPW compilers >instead of third-party c and Pascal compilers ? MPW compilers have very slow compile times, Think compilers shine in this area. MPW compilers generally generate better code than Think. MPW Compilers do have the advantage of great inter-language support (a program can consist of C,Pascal, & Asm code all inter-linked without any problems.) The MPW Shell environment is much more user customizable, with custom menus, tools, scripts, and lots of standard tools at your disposal. I am, however, a bit biased, as I helped write MPW... for more info see my article on MPW in a special Dr. Dobb's summer Macintosh issue. Dan Allen Apple Computer
simon@alberta.UUCP (Simon Tortike) (08/29/88)
In article <16217@apple.Apple.COM>, dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen) writes: > > The MPW Shell environment is much more user customizable, with custom > menus, tools, scripts, and lots of standard tools at your disposal. I > am, however, a bit biased, as I helped write MPW... for more info see my > article on MPW in a special Dr. Dobb's summer Macintosh issue. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What ever happened to this? Our local supplier of software and programming materials never heard of it. Was it part of a regular issue of Dr Dobb's Journal, like the August issue of BYTE, or was it a separate publication? > > Dan Allen > Apple Computer ------------------- Simon Tortike, Department of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineering, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, CANADA T6G 2G6. UUCP: alberta!simon | BITNET: stortike@ualtavm | AGT: +1 403/432-3338
tedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) (08/30/88)
>What ever happened to this? Our local supplier of software and programming >materials never heard of it. Was it part of a regular issue of Dr Dobb's >Journal, like the August issue of BYTE, or was it a separate publication? It was a separate publication. I found it a bit disappointing (thin, and no LSC code). -Ted
dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen) (08/30/88)
In article <1558@pembina.UUCP> simon@alberta.UUCP (Simon Tortike) writes: >> article on MPW in a special Dr. Dobb's summer Macintosh issue. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >What ever happened to this? Our local supplier of software and programming >materials never heard of it. Was it part of a regular issue of Dr Dobb's >Journal, like the August issue of BYTE, or was it a separate publication? This was a special (and separate) Dr. Dobb's Journal just on Macintosh Programming. It came out in late June and is to stay on newstands through mid-Sept. Dan Allen Apple Computer