tim@chaos.math.uakron.edu (Timothy Smith) (07/04/90)
I just received actor 3.0 from the WhiteWater Group... And have started to use it for small programs.. The speed of the code seems very good.. The documentation that came with my "Acedemic version" consists of two paper backs.. I would have prefered 3-ring binders.. From what people were saying about actor I thought you could create stand-alone applications using actor... They were wrong.. you cannot You must either have the windows developers kit or BUY another product from WhiteWater... for $195.. :-( So the total cost (list) of using this product turns out to be 695.00 (actor) + 195.00 (Addon kit) == too much money.. I would suggest that anyone wanting to develope real applications for windows buy the microsoft developers kit.. much cheaper compared to actor.. Althought Actor is quite good at prototyping applications.. and seems like a well rounded package.. tim smith tim@chaos.math.uakron.edu #include <std.disclaimer>
bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) (07/04/90)
In article <500@VAX1.CC.UAKRON.EDU> tim@chaos.math.uakron.edu (Timothy Smith) writes: > >I just received actor 3.0 from the WhiteWater Group... And have started >to use it <deleted stuff including won't create stand-alone programs> >You must either have the windows developers kit or BUY another product from >WhiteWater... for $195.. :-( So the total cost (list) of using this product >turns out to be 695.00 (actor) + 195.00 (Addon kit) == too much money.. Version 1.2b would create stand alone programs! I have not yet received my update to Actor 3.0 and did not notice any reference to this in the Whitewater brochure. How about a clarification from the Whitewater folks? * Bruce Benson + Internet - bwb@sei.cmu.edu + + * Software Engineering Institute + Compuserv - 76226,3407 + >--|> * Carnegie Mellon University + Voice - 412 268 8496 + + * Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890 + + US Air Force
gyugyi@portia.Stanford.EDU (Paul Gyugyi) (07/04/90)
In article <500@VAX1.CC.UAKRON.EDU> tim@chaos.math.uakron.edu (Timothy Smith) writes: > >I just received actor 3.0 from the WhiteWater Group... And have started >to use it >for small programs.. The speed of the code seems very good.. The documentation [...] >prefered 3-ring binders.. From what people were saying about actor I I like the paperback books myself. They take up less room, although they aer less durable. >thought you >could create stand-alone applications using actor... They were wrong.. >you cannot >You must either have the windows developers kit or BUY another product from >WhiteWater... for $195.. :-( So the total cost (list) of using this product This is just so wrong I'm not even going to wait to let Patrick respond. To make resources, you can use the PD program icondr.exe to make your icons, and bitmaps can be done in paintbrush, and dialogs can be hand made (ugh,) or thrown together quickly using dynamic dialog and menu creation in Actor (one of the nicer features). The SDK or resource kit are simply easier ways of doing this. The Actor documentation of WIndows calls is better than I expected, and you can always buy the SDK reference manuals at B. Daltons if you need more information. Actor has a very good section describing how to seal off and application, and guides you through the process. The only problem I can see would be making your own icons. The rc.exe resource compiler is included with Actor. If you have any questions on making icons, or want to know how to get icondr, I'd be happy to help you out. > >tim smith >tim@chaos.math.uakron.edu > > >#include <std.disclaimer> -Paul Gyugyi Stanford University. just a grad student) Absoultely no involvement with The Whitewater group, aside from a happy customer. gyugyi@portia.stanford.edu
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (07/10/90)
In article <500@VAX1.CC.UAKRON.EDU> tim@chaos.math.uakron.edu (Timothy Smith) writes: >From what people were saying about actor I thought you >could create stand-alone applications using actor... They were wrong.. >you cannot. You must either have the windows developers kit or BUY another >product from WhiteWater... for $195.. :-( So the total cost (list) of >using this product turns out to be 695.00 (actor) + 195.00 (Addon kit) == >too much money.. Why do you say you can't create stand alone applications without the Toolkit? Before the resource toolkit existed we had people creating stand alone applications. Right now I could create a program for you with dialogs, menus, and so on in a matter of hours. I could then remove our compiler from the system and create a program that runs and looks like any normal Windows program. I'd be really interested in what made you say you can't create a stand alone program. -- "Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for trivial pursuit." -Harlan Ellison Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (07/10/90)
In article <7723@fy.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: >Version 1.2b would create stand alone programs! I have not yet received my >update to Actor 3.0 and did not notice any reference to this in the >Whitewater brochure. How about a clarification from the Whitewater folks? Fear not people. We've not changed in that respect. Not only can you still create stand alone applicatioins, but we've made the process much easier. Previously we had a process called "Sealing Off". This required running a slim and trim version of Actor, loading your program, then removing the compiler from the system. We now have a menu choice called "Seal Off..." that will bring up a dialog. All you have to do is provide the name of a class (that you create) that starts your application, the name of the file you want it saved into, your static setting, and your dynamic setting. Hit OK and voila, you have an application. I believe that the previous posters confusion on this matter (he thought you required the Resource Toolkit to do this) is due to our new manuals. In order to make integration of our tools easier, we do refer to the Toolkit in our new manuals. He possible thought that it was _required_ to perform actions that we referred to (e.g. dialog boxes, menus, etc). -- "Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for trivial pursuit." -Harlan Ellison Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us
moss@moss.TTI.COM (Moss) (07/12/90)
As a practical matter, you DO need the Resource Toolkit to build a full function Actor application. I have recently converted my Actor 2 app to Actor 3 and since the Resource Toolkit is not available for Windows 3.0, I have had to use the SDK resource editorcompiler and ICON editor to "finish it off". Since the Resource Toolkit will not be available for a couple of months, plan on learning to use the SDK tools for near term developments. (Patrick, how would you create a password dialog (ES_PASSWORD) or custom icons within Actor?) On the subject of standalone applications, yes, you can seal-off the app and discard the compliler but the app still consists of two files - the actor runtime amd the IMA file. It would be preferable if the seal off process embedded the image in the EXE. It is too easy for users who don't understand actor structure to move the exe somewhere and leave the ima behind. These faults (and others), however, do not prevent Actor from being the most productive application development environment for Windows available today. The person that said that "$695+$195" is too much money must value his time at much less that $5.00 per hour. Les Moss moss@tti.com Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2982 Santa Monica, CA 90405
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (07/14/90)
In article <18534@ttidca.TTI.COM> moss@moss.TTI.COM (Moss) writes: >Since the Resource Toolkit will not be available for a couple of months, >plan on learning to use the SDK tools for near term developments. (Patrick, >how would you create a password dialog (ES_PASSWORD) or custom icons >within Actor?) Actually, I've thought about these myself. Creating the dialog is simple enough. We do provide the Resource Compiler for Windows and we do have a wide array of dialog boxes that can be used to see how various dialog styles are set up. Agreed, this is an ugly way to create dialogs but it does work. We also have the dynamic dialog creation for those that want to come up with something quickly. As for Icons, there is a way to cheat on those. If you set the icon to null when the window is registered (set the wndIcon method so that it returns a 0) your icon will become whatever is on your screen. If you use a bitmap editor, create a bitmap that is 64x64, and then set your window up in such a way so that this bitmap is displayed in the window when it is iconized you will have an icon. Sure, it's a cludge, but it does work. Oh, and the comment on imbedding the .IMA file in the EXE file, I like it. It's something that I've suggested a few times but it's never quite done. -- "Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for trivial pursuit." -Harlan Ellison Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us