melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/25/91)
In article <1991Mar23.225116.21450@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd A. Green) writes:
Have you ever programmed the Mac? It took me all of 1 day from the
time I received THINK C and Inside Mac I-V to get a program compiled and
running. (And no it wasn't "Hello World" ;) ). While the IB is nice,
I have to say right now I prefere ResEdit 2.1. I'll admit I'm biased
as all heck having used ResEdit for a considerable length of time, and
still being new to NeXT programming. But I find progamming the NeXT
much more complicated. With all the .prog, .nib, .m's, .tiff,
.iconheader files...objective C (which again is new for me). Having
to learn about classes, inheritance, etc.
Bullshit. Anyone else on the net want to claim that they went through
all 5 (aren't we up to 7) volumes of inside the Mac in one day(or one
month). And I've used RedEdit 2.1 and it doesn't touch the NeXT
Interface Builder.
You might as well get used to classes, inheritance, etc, even Apple is
going to use OO programming as the paradigm for Mac programming. Take
C++ with MacApp, for example. Actually, doesn't Object Pascal have
classes, etc. Strikes me that it should. Self is the only classless
OO language of which I know. So, I guess Apple is already using an OO
paradigm. Anyway, Objective C has a much smaller learning curve than
C++. There are fewer extensions to C.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that any Joe-blow C or Pascal
programmer can pick up a book and learn to program the Mac (at least
the basics) in a matter of days. I have not found the transition to
the NeXT as easy. But this is just my personal experience. Maybe
others have found it easier. (Especially those who are already
objective C programmers, which seems to be my biggest hindrance, that
along with the lack of information. The only sources that I have are
what came online with NeXTstep 2.0 ). Well time will tell as I become
more familiar with the IB, and objective C. Maybe I can make a more
definitive comparison then. Right now I'd love to be back in THINK C.
The basics on the Mac are already done for you on the NeXT. Even if
it took you twice as long to learn on the NeXT, you will still be able
to do more after you learn how to program the NeXT, and do it faster.
I think the main problem with NeXT programming is that the 2.0 docs
haven't been released yet. Things should become a lot clearer to the
neophyte NeXT programmer when this happens.
-Miketagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd A. Green) (03/25/91)
In article <mb7G6-.71@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <1991Mar23.225116.21450@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd A. Green) writes: > > [original post deleted] >Bullshit. Anyone else on the net want to claim that they went through >all 5 (aren't we up to 7) volumes of inside the Mac in one day(or one >month). And I've used RedEdit 2.1 and it doesn't touch the NeXT >Interface Builder. Bullshit yourself. I didn't say I memorized all 5 volumes( and no we are not up to VII. VI is supposedly released on a developer's CD which I haven't had the chance to verify yet ), in a day, and that Apple is going to hire me tomorrow to work on System 8. I stated that I easily compiled a program (actually two. One to play with PRAM, and another to fiddle with offscreen ports ), after I got the books, and a few tutorials. >You might as well get used to classes, inheritance, etc, even Apple is >going to use OO programming as the paradigm for Mac programming. Take >C++ with MacApp, for example. Actually, doesn't Object Pascal have >classes, etc. Strikes me that it should. Self is the only classless >OO language of which I know. So, I guess Apple is already using an OO >paradigm. Anyway, Objective C has a much smaller learning curve than >C++. There are fewer extensions to C. THINK C does have object class libraries (TCL). And yes Apple is going to OO. System 7 is written in C++ if I'm not mistaken. And yes I'm getting used to OO programming but it takes more than a day ;). > [more stuff deleted] >The basics on the Mac are already done for you on the NeXT. Even if >it took you twice as long to learn on the NeXT, you will still be able >to do more after you learn how to program the NeXT, and do it faster. Once you do something on the Mac once you can obviously use the code over and over. So you really only have to do the "basics" once. Again I don't want to get in a huge debate on Mac vs. NeXT. It's just my personal experience that there's less info aviable to novices wanting to learn about the NeXT than on the Mac. Though I've recently heard of a tuturial put out by Purdue. I'll have to check it out. >I think the main problem with NeXT programming is that the 2.0 docs >haven't been released yet. Things should become a lot clearer to the >neophyte NeXT programmer when this happens. Neophyte...rather nice choice of words...painfully true ;). But don't forget that you were once neophyte; we all start somewhere. > >-Mike Todd ============================================================================== Todd A. Green "<_CyberWolf_>" ---> Pascal <- tagreen@ucs.indiana.edu Unix Systems Administration ---> Unix <--- tagreen@silver.ucs.indiana.edu Macintosh Systems Administration ---> VMS <---- tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu WCC Office:136.04 phone:855-0949 ---> C <------ tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana "Friends don't let friends ---> Mac <---- tagreen@iubacs.BITNET Use DOS" - Scott Ostrander ---> SunOS <-- tagreen@lykos (FTP only) ==============================================================================
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar25.145420.16015@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd A. Green) writes: >>In article <1991Mar23.225116.21450@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd A. Green) writes: >>You might as well get used to classes, inheritance, etc, even Apple is >>going to use OO programming as the paradigm for Mac programming. Take >>C++ with MacApp, for example. Actually, doesn't Object Pascal have >>classes, etc. Strikes me that it should. Self is the only classless >>OO language of which I know. So, I guess Apple is already using an OO >>paradigm. Anyway, Objective C has a much smaller learning curve than >>C++. There are fewer extensions to C. > >THINK C does have object class libraries (TCL). And yes Apple is going >to OO. System 7 is written in C++ if I'm not mistaken. And yes I'm >getting used to OO programming but it takes more than a day ;). Lest we forget, Apple "went to OO" in 1983 (Lisa Toolkit and the Clascal language) and shipped the FIRST commercial OO application library (MacApp, written in Object Pascal) in 1985. Today's combination of ViewEdit with the MacApp libraries is very similar to NeXT's interface builder. Apple has been a commercial pioneer in the use of object-oriented techniques. BTW, only the System 7 Finder is written in C++. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900