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
rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) (05/24/89)
In article <8511@chinet.chi.il.us> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) writes: >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. This is a matter of opinion. Lets just say that binding an application is not straight forward. However, it can be done and I am sure that the more times you do it the better you will get. Just call the Actor BBS with your questions. > >>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. The number 200K came directly off of the Actor BBS. I did not make it up. True many LARGE applications are bigger than 100k, like Windows Write (~190K), PaintBrush (~250K), and Excel (~550K), however Windows Write will run in 8k of memory. Actor programs do not work this way. They load as one big hunk. This is called a memory hog. This is fine for prototypes, but not for the finished application. However, as I said about, this is too big for *my* applications. Everyone else can evaluate this for themselves. Now for a clarification that my message should have had: this 75k overhead is not proportional to the code size, it is a one time penalty. > >>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. I started programming for Windows with Actor and Petzold's book and I found this combination extremely difficult for any real work. Petzold's book is fantastic and a must for any Windows programming in C, Modula 2, C++, or Actor. However, Petzold's book is not a reference. The "how-to" information in the SDK is only so-so, but the reference information is invaluable. In order to use the Window's calls you need to know how they work, the SDK tells you this. Otherwise you will spend hours finding out what the SDK tells you in minutes. If you want to program in Actor, using the window classes that are provided, then you do not need the SDK, but if you want to write Windows programs, like the original poster, then you will need the SDK. > >Feel free to mail this account with any questions you may have about Actor. >I'll be happy to answer them. > > Patrick Deupree I am sorry if I sound like I am down on Actor. It is because it is so close to what I want to be using. Again, I would like to say that anyone who can get it on an Educational Discount should buy Actor today and see for yourself ( a fantastic way to learn OOPs). If you cannot get the discount, then buy the SDK first, read through Petzold's book, write some short programs, and then buy Actor. (This is the same approach as learning assembler and then a high level language. I fully believe it is the best approach in this case.) Glad to see that there is are Actor programmers on the net. Do you know when Actor 2.0 is going to be released? I am really looking forward to it. -----Dale Rogerson-----
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (05/26/89)
In article <2531@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM> rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) writes: > Do you know when Actor 2.0 is going to be released? I am really > looking forward to it. > > -----Dale > Rogerson----- Well, as it always is with burocracy, red tape, and official announcment dates I can't announce when Actor 2.0 will be released. I will say that it should be soon (but I can't say what soon is). I can say that it will be nice and should solve a LOT of problems. -- "I place my faith in fools. Self confidence, my friends call it." -Edgar Allen Poe Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us
mdc@indetech.UUCP (Mark Copple) (05/27/89)
Howdy, Forthose of you who have acquired ACTOR and have moved on to other environments I would possibly like to purchase the system. Personally I only dabble in windows development and the cost of a brand new off the shelve version is way out of my budget. SOOOOO.. If you have a recent version of Actor and wouldnt mind parting with it... Drop me a line Mark Copple Independence Technologies 42705 Lawrence Place Fremont Ca. 94538 Office: (415) 438-2028 FAX : (415) 438-2034 or net mail Thanks P.S. I already have MSC 5.1 and SDK 2.(something)