ns@CAT.CMU.EDU (Nicholas Spies) (02/24/88)
The FASTEST way, except for HyperCard, to program on the Mac is to use Forth, even if you end up programming in C or Pascal (which really isn't so bad either). Forth is interpreted, so windows, controls, etc can be created and moved around very quickly. Even if you don't stay with Forth, it remains invaluable for prototyping ideas that may find eventual implementation in another language. Mac2 and MacForth are both good systems; the first because all Mac traps are supported with a simple CALL interface, the second because of an MPW-like editor and an object-oriented extension package. NEON is also a Forth-based object oriented language mentioned in the book "Object-Oriented Programming for the Mac" by Schmucker (Hayden). All of these are extensible and both Forths (at least) can make stand-alone applications. See ads in magazines for info. It would be really interesting to see C++ for the Mac... -- Nicholas Spies ns@cat.cmu.edu.arpa Center for Design of Educational Computing Carnegie Mellon University
smethers@psu-cs.UUCP (Paul Smethers) (03/03/88)
In article <940@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> ns@CAT.CMU.EDU (Nicholas Spies) writes: >The FASTEST way, except for HyperCard, to program on the Mac is to use Forth, Okay, this is the first of a series of replies pushing Prototyper. I know that I may represent a biased opinion, but I also believe that if anyone in net-land has used it, they would agree that it can really save time (and $$) to begin programming. First, it is the FASTEST. In ten minutes you can completely DRAW your user interface, and Prototyper will spit out the twenty pages of USABLE source code and resources for your programming. It generates Pascal currently, but will soon support all major 'C' compilers. Second, it is cheap for what it does. Call SmethersBarnes at 800-237-3611 to order for $125. This is very inexpensive for the work it does (plus free bug-fix upgrades), and our customer support is all ears to improvements or the needs of our customers (at no additional cost). Finally, it includes resource loading and generation, full support for icons, buttons, radio buttons, check boxes, scroll bars, list boxes, static and editable text (with different fonts), menu creation, and the creation of dialog-boxes, alerts, and windows. You can link buttons or menus to cause other windows or dialogs to appear. You can simulate your program at any point to look at it our how it works. It requires no typing (no programming), only pointing and clicking. I may be biased, so I strongly urge someone who has bought it to tell their side of the story. But it appears that many could use this tool, and few understand it or know it exists. I apologize if it appears that I am advertising, but it apppears that there are many in this group who could benefit by the knowledge of the program. By the way, the author is also an Apple employee, and one of the major developers of the original resource editor. He knew is stuff before he wrote Prototyper, and I think he did a greate job for 1.0 (George Cossey). Paul Smethers SmethersBarnes
usenet@saturn.ucsc.edu (Usenet News Account) (03/05/88)
. From: gagaku@ucscd.UCSC.EDU (23527000) Path: ucscd.UCSC.EDU!gagaku In article <526@psu-cs.UUCP> smethers@psu-cs.UUCP (Paul Smethers) writes: > >Okay, this is the first of a series of replies pushing Prototyper. I know . . >Paul Smethers I'd appreciate comparisons of this and related products, or pointers to useful reviews (haven't seen any in the basic mags). How to evaluate MacApp, MacExpress, Programmer's Extender, TransSkel--without actually trying them out? (Too expensive, & they don't accept returns!) Perhaps availability of such powertools might influence choice of language. For small projects, certainly seems like such packages are a necessary shortcut, but haven't been able to find enough info to make an informed decision. Would welcome comments by net or e-mail. Fred Lieberman Music Board, U.C. SantaCruz (gagaku@ucscd.ucsc.edu)
ns@CAT.CMU.EDU (Nicholas Spies) (03/05/88)
>... it includes resource loading and generation, full support for icons, >buttons, radio buttons, check boxes, scroll bars, list boxes, static and >editable text (with different fonts), menu creation, and the creation of >dialog-boxes, alerts, and windows. You can link buttons or menus to cause >other windows or dialogs to appear. You can simulate your program at any >point to look at it our how it works. It requires no typing (no programming), >only pointing and clicking. Prototyper sounds interesting, but reading between the lines seems to suggest that it is for developing a _simulated_ program (for developing a user interface) rather than for building reasonably fast applications in Prototyper itself. Is this the case? Can you, for instance, use the serial ports in Prototyper? Could you write a videodisc driver in Prototyper and test it interactively? It's easy in Forth :-). User interface programming needs all the help it can get on the Mac, and Prototyper may do a wonderful job of it, but this is no way detracts from the value of coding interactively in Forth, either. Programming wouldn't be nearly as much fun if it didn't involve these deep religious issues! -- Nicholas Spies ns@cat.cmu.edu.arpa Center for Design of Educational Computing Carnegie Mellon University
jwhitnel@csi.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) (03/08/88)
In article <526@psu-cs.UUCP> smethers@psu-cs.UUCP (Paul Smethers) writes: > >Okay, this is the first of a series of replies pushing Prototyper. I know >that I may represent a biased opinion, but I also believe that if anyone in >net-land has used it, they would agree that it can really save time (and $$) >to begin programming. To counter the push, I'm posting some of the reasons why I didn't buy Prototyper. I played with it for a little while at ComputerWare, so I can't claim to be an experienced user, but this should give a balanced picture. > >Second, it is cheap for what it does. Call SmethersBarnes at 800-237-3611 to >order for $125. ComputerWare has it for about $100. > >Finally, it includes resource loading and generation, full support for icons, >buttons, radio buttons, check boxes, scroll bars, list boxes, static and >editable text (with different fonts), menu creation, and the creation of >dialog-boxes, alerts, and windows. You can link buttons or menus to cause >other windows or dialogs to appear. You can simulate your program at any >point to look at it our how it works. It requires no typing (no programming), >only pointing and clicking. The problem with prototyper is that this is about all it does. It handles only the resources mentioned above and no others. There appeared to be no way to add more advance features such as tear-off menus and pop-up menus, pallette windows, etc. It also appears not to support user-defined MDEFs, WDEFs, and CDEFs. There was also no way to display any data in the windows and dialogs to simulate the programs results (useful for what-if experimentation with new programs interface). A simple paint system to draw in the windows would have helped at this point. There was no way to play with any other resources, so you still need ResEdit or RMaker to create any other resources. There also appeared to be no support for DAs, other then the user modify the code generated by Prototyper. Prototyper is probably acceptable for the beginning amatuer who is going to do nothing more then write a few freeware programs, but for the professional or even the advanced amatuer, Prototyper unfortunatly runs out of gas. > >I may be biased, so I strongly urge someone who has bought it to tell their >side of the story. But it appears that many could use this tool, and few >understand it or know it exists. I apologize if it appears that I am >advertising, but it apppears that there are many in this group who could >benefit by the knowledge of the program. I'm not biased either for or against Prototyper, I'm mostly disappointed. What is there is very clean and well-done, unfortunatly what it is missing makes it not very useful for me. I hope the next version will have most of the features listed above, because if it did I would be prepared to buy it. But as it stands, it just doesn't have enough bang for the buck. Paul, if I'm wrong about some of the above, please correct me. Most of the above was based on reading the manual and playing a little with program, so I may have missed something. > >Paul Smethers >SmethersBarnes Jerry Whitnell Been through Hell? Communication Solutions, Inc. What did you bring back for me? - A. Brilliant
UD069225@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Eric H. Romo) (03/11/88)
I'd like to know more about MPW, For starters- how much does it cost, and where
can I get it(publisher or mail-order houses)?
MacUser raved about it in an article detailing what to look for in a compiler,
"Picking A Compiler", February 1988, p.267-274. The article is pretty good but
a bit above the complete novice programmer at times. I don't believe the author
had a clear picture of whom he was directing his article at.
Thanks!
-Eric.smethers@psu-cs.UUCP (Paul Smethers) (03/11/88)
>Prototyper sounds interesting, but reading between the lines seems to suggest >that it is for developing a _simulated_ program (for developing a user >interface) rather than for building reasonably fast applications in >Prototyper itself. Is this the case? Can you, for instance, use the serial >ports in Prototyper? Could you write a videodisc driver in Prototyper and test >it interactively? It's easy in Forth :-). You are right, Prototyper concentrates solely on the User Interface. Its only functionality is the user-interface (i.e. buttons invert when clicked, menus select, and lists scroll), and the menus and buttons can be linked to cause other windows to appear. Other than that, the only additional functionality can be added by generating the source code and modifying that code. In terms of "reasonably fast applications", that is according to if you consider a Pascal program "fast". Prototyper generates good, usable code, but it does not generate assembly or Forth. > >User interface programming needs all the help it can get on the Mac, and >Prototyper may do a wonderful job of it, but this is no way detracts from >the value of coding interactively in Forth, either. Programming wouldn't >be nearly as much fun if it didn't involve these deep religious issues! > Glad to oblige >-- >Nicholas Spies ns@cat.cmu.edu.arpa Paul Smethers SmethersBarnes >Center for Design of Educational Computing >Carnegie Mellon University (ex Carnegie Mellon University)
smethers@psu-cs.UUCP (Paul Smethers) (03/11/88)
In article <2206@saturn.ucsc.edu> usenet@saturn.ucsc.edu (Usenet News Account) writes: >. >From: gagaku@ucscd.UCSC.EDU (23527000) >Path: ucscd.UCSC.EDU!gagaku > >In article <526@psu-cs.UUCP> smethers@psu-cs.UUCP (Paul Smethers) writes: >> >>Okay, this is the first of a series of replies pushing Prototyper. I know >. >. >>Paul Smethers > >I'd appreciate comparisons of this and related products, or pointers to >useful reviews (haven't seen any in the basic mags). How to evaluate >MacApp, MacExpress, Programmer's Extender, TransSkel--without actually >trying them out? (Too expensive, & they don't accept returns!) > MacTimes February-March 1988 (the current issue) has the first review on Prototyper that is currently published. The summary paragraph of this Four Apples review is: Should you run to get this product? The answer is yes if you are thinking of designing any type of Macintosh application with a standard interface. The time saved will be well worth the $125 list price of this product. - Robert Forras There will be reviews in the next month in each of MacTutor, MacWeek, Macintosh Today, MacWorld, and (I think) MacUser. Each of these reviews have been taken on by Macintosh stars who love Prototyper. David Smith himself has told us that he loves it so much that he is going to write the review himself, and do whatever he can to help us support the product and get out the message. Compared to MacApp, MacExpress, etc, Prototyper is an application, where these other products are source code that has already been written and can be modified for programming. Prototyper can be used by a non- programmer, while each of these other tools require an understanding of programming, Inside Macintosh, and other skills. These products may actually work together with Prototyper, for it can be conceived that Prototyper may generate code to one or more of these toolkits rather than straight Macintosh toolkit code (but it does not currently). Prototyper is a starting point for design, simulation, and code and resource generation. These kits are for simplifying the implementation phase. Paul Smethers SmethersBarnes