dcw@goldilocks.lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (07/26/90)
I've been doing a lot of work with MacApp lately, and it's starting to grow on me. The concept is great. For those who don't know, MacApp is a complete shell of an application written in Object Pascal. One simply (ha!) has to write the code that makes an application specifically his/hers. A full-blown application which is compliant with every nook and cranny of the OS is much easier to pump out with MacApp than it otherwise would be. Anyway, I was wondering if any such thing is in the works for us GS programmers. Having something which practically abstracts away EVERYTHING makes writing the actual program code that DOES something much easier to deal with (this is the primary reason I haven't done any GS-specific programming - I have no great desire to read through 1200-1500 pages of manuals). Also, having something like this would make porting GS <-> Mac ridiculously easy. Any words? -- Dave Whitney A graduate in Computer Science from MIT dcw@goldilocks.lcs.mit.edu ...!mit-eddie!goldilocks!dcw dcw@athena.mit.edu My employer pays me well. This, however, does not mean he agrees with me. I wrote Z-Link & BinSCII. Send me bug reports. I use a //GS. Send me Tech Info.
delaneyg@wnre.aecl.ca ("Comp.Binaries.Apple2 Forwarding") (07/26/90)
>Organization: MIT Spoken Language Systems Group >I've been doing a lot of work with MacApp lately, and it's starting to >grow on me. The concept is great. For those who don't know, MacApp is >a complete shell of an application written in Object Pascal. One >simply (ha!) has to write the code that makes an application >specifically his/hers. A full-blown application which is compliant >with every nook and cranny of the OS is much easier to pump out with >MacApp than it otherwise would be. Apple still says that for serious developers that Using MPW with the Mac Programing languages to develop GS software is still the best way. And after seeing them put together some software to run a device off the SCSI at Kansasfest I'm afraid I'll have to agree. Using a IICi or IIFX Mac and a GS hung on over AppleTalk or serially connected for testing really can't be beat. >Also, having something like this would make porting GS <-> Mac >ridiculously easy. >Any words? Yes and working through MPW you can do development for both system at once >-- >Dave Whitney A graduate in Computer Science from MIT >dcw@goldilocks.lcs.mit.edu ...!mit-eddie!goldilocks!dcw dcw@athena.mit.edu >My employer pays me well. This, however, does not mean he agrees with me. >I wrote Z-Link & BinSCII. Send me bug reports. I use a //GS. Send me Tech Info.
dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) (07/27/90)
In article <1990Jul25.214526.8462@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dcw@goldilocks.lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) writes:
(Is there a MacApp in the works for the GS? I haven't done any GS-
specific programming because I don't want to read 1200-1500 pages of
manuals.)
If you believe a MacApp-like approach would mean *less* stuff you have
to read, you -may- be very mistaken. I have written only -trivial-
stuff with MacApp, but if I were doing a real application I would
want to understand how everything worked, meaning I would have to
understand the toolbox and OS *and* the MacApp-ish layer on top of
it.
Don't you find with MacApp you need to refer to the source to the
MacApp layer a lot to see how it works?
--
David A. Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems
Apple II Developer Technical Support | P.O. Box 875
America Online: Dave Lyons | Cupertino, CA 95015-0875
GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS CompuServe: 72177,3233
Internet/BITNET: dlyons@apple.com UUCP: ...!ames!apple!dlyons
My opinions are my own, not Apple's.jschober@gnh-starport.cts.com (Joey Schober) (07/28/90)
Genesys, a program creation utility, kinda does what you want, Dave. (I'm
assuming you've already heard of this utility, but for those who haven't:
Genesys is a program creation application by Simple Software <SSSi>. It's
primarily a graphic-based resource editor -- VERY powerful, very full-featured
-- that allows you to create/edit resource forks as well as to generate source
code from the resources you design; source can be generated in one of 6 zillion
or so popular languages.)
ANNNNYWAY. Source code generation is done in a really spiffy way: SSSi
developed a scripting language of sorts. What they (or you) do is write SCG's
(Source Code Generators) that take your resources and generate code for it.
Now, the default APW/ORCA assembly templates JUST generate data blocks;
HOWEVER, SCG's =can= and =will= actually generate a code shell that uses the
data blocks to set up the entire user interface part of a program for you.
SSSi has indicated that the '816 SCG's will in the future do this (I think
Pascal and maybe some other SCG's already do); if you're impatient, though, you
could write your own SCG's: complete documentation for doing so is included in
the Genesys manual.
Hope that helps! :)
Joseph F. Schober, Sysop, StarPort BBS [703/931-0947 - 3/12/2400 baud]
ProLine.: jschober@gnh-starport ======================
UUCP....: crash!gnh-starport!jschober Amer-Online: JSchober
InterNet: jschober@gnh-starport.cts.com CompuServe: 72727,2765
ARPA....: crash!gnh-starport!jschober@nosc.mil ======================lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (07/31/90)
In article <43375@apple.Apple.COM> dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) writes: > >If you believe a MacApp-like approach would mean *less* stuff you have >to read, you -may- be very mistaken. I have written only -trivial- >stuff with MacApp, but if I were doing a real application I would >want to understand how everything worked, meaning I would have to >understand the toolbox and OS *and* the MacApp-ish layer on top of >it. I don't think this is true for everyone. I think lots of people have been able to get started with MacApp without reading the MacApp code or reading all of Inside Macintosh. >Don't you find with MacApp you need to refer to the source to the >MacApp layer a lot to see how it works? I don't think this is necessary unless you are doing something very sophisticated, or you are tracking down a possible MacApp bug. With the proper MacApp class/tutorial/book, you should be able to produce a sophisticated application without referring to MacApp's source code or understanding the details of the Toolbox. If you are the type of programmer that wants to understand all the underlying details, then you will have to do a lot of reading. (After all, MacApp itself is a complete application, and it's always harder to read someone else's code.) In that case, MacApp may not be right for you. If you start with the MacApp example programs and tutorial, then you can write your application much more quickly, and get a lot of benefit from MacApp. -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 46-B Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr