robert@CSUStan.EDU (Robert Zeff) (05/14/89)
I have applications that I would like to write for Microsoft
Windows. I have been told that Actor is a better alternative to
Windows Toolkit. I would like to hear some comments on this subject.
If Actor is a good Object Oriented programming environment, do I
also need Windows Toolkit? Also, where can I get Actor and hom much?
Many Thanks,
Robert Zeff (209) 577-4268 work, 577-8548 FAX
ZAPCO
2549 Yosemite Blvd Ste. E robert@altair.csustan.edu
Modesto, Ca. 95354 {lll-lcc,lll-crg}!csustan!robert
--
Robert Zeff (209) 577-4268 work, 577-8548 FAX
ZAPCO
2549 Yosemite Blvd Ste. E robert@koko.csustan.edu
Modesto, Ca. 95354 {lll-lcc,lll-crg}!csustan!robertrogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) (05/16/89)
In article <1072@koko.CSUStan.EDU> robert@CSUStan.EDU (Robert Zeff) writes: >I have applications that I would like to write for Microsoft >Windows. I have been told that Actor is a better alternative to >Windows Toolkit. I would like to hear some comments on this subject. >If Actor is a good Object Oriented programming environment, do I >also need Windows Toolkit? Also, where can I get Actor and hom much? >Many Thanks, > >Robert Zeff (209) 577-4268 work, 577-8548 FAX For those people who are not familiar with Actor, it is a Object oriented language and environment based heavily on Smalltalk. Actor runs under Windows and produces Windows programs. Like Smalltalk, the tools and environment are written in Actor and the source is included. In fact in you turn the environment into your application. The main difference between Actor and Smalltalk is the syntax. Actor uses a C-like syntax making it easier to learn. The neated thing about Actor is that it is a interpreter. When you change a method (procedure) you can instantly start using it. This is really neat. IF YOU CAN GET AN EDUCATIONAL DISCOUNT ($99) THEN ORDER ACTOR TODAY!!!! In theory I really like Actor, but in practice it fails. It takes alot of memory to run Actor. It is difficult to bind an application, i.e. make a stand alone program. The smallest code size is > 75k and more realistically about 200k. For my applications this memory requirement is excessive. Actor does not do a good enough join of isolating one from Windows this makes it more difficult to use than I would like. Learning to program Windows is not easy. However, with Actor you must also learn Actor, OOPs, and Windows all at the same time. This is even more difficult. As I said before if you can get an educational discount then buy Actor. It is fun to play with. I use it for quick and dirty things instead of BASIC. If you want to write Windows programs you will still need to get the development kit from Microsoft to really understand what is happening. Feel free to write me if you have any questions. -----dale rogerson-----
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (05/23/89)
In article <2512@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM> rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) writes: > >In theory I really like Actor, but in practice it fails. It takes alot of >memory to run Actor. It is difficult to bind an application, i.e. make a >stand alone program. Sealing off an application is not so difficult once someone gets used to it. I mean, it took me a while to figure out make files and things like that when I was working with C back on the good old unix systems at college. The main problem we've had with sealing off is that we have to rely on the resource compiler, and that seems to be where everyone has a problem. The other area people seem to have trouble with is figuring out what classes to include in the sealed off applications and which ones not to. It's a little tough, but not overly so. >The smallest code size is > 75k and more realistically >about 200k. For my applications this memory requirement is excessive. What code size are you talking about here? If you're talking about the EXE file, not all of that is loaded into memory. If you're just talking about what goes into memory alone, you won't find many applications (complex ones that is) that use less than 100K of memory. However, you are right in the fact that it involves more binary size than a rmal C program might. However, the programs generally run fast when written in Actor and they are much smaller in actual written code size. >Actor does not do a good enough join of isolating one from Windows this makes >it more difficult to use than I would like. Learning to program Windows is not >easy. However, with Actor you must also learn Actor, OOPs, and Windows all at >the same time. This is even more difficult. > >If you want to write Windows programs you will still need to get the development >kit from Microsoft to really understand what is happening. > You don't really need the SDK to use Actor. There is a book called "Programming Windows" by Charles Petzold that describes most of the Windows calls you'll ever need to make. The only reason one would need the SDK is if they wanted to create a DLL or DDE (Dynamic Link Library or Dynamic Data Exchange). The Petzold book, however, is much easier to read than the SDK manual and has C examples that I've found easy to convert to Actor. Feel free to mail this account with any questions you may have about Actor. I'll be happy to answer them. Patrick Deupree