Randy_Humes@f117.n151.z1.fidonet.org (Randy Humes) (05/02/91)
Peter: As I understand it, Borland bought out Actor(not sure). I have played with it a little and Borland C++ is OK. The pitfalls of using a pure OOPS like Object1 or Smalltalk do not occur as you are still in control at a low level. I have not toyed with Actot directly, rumor has it that it is cumbersome. ParcPlace sells an expensive Smalltalk win package that is supposed to be good - again no personnal exoerience. The real question I have is - what are your business and tech requirements? Depending upon these and your personnal(or groups) level of experience will determine which package to use. An example being - no C experience, DBase experience, short time frame, network database, minimal performance req. use Object1, SQL, Win3, and LAN Manager. With C experience, large system, and tough performance criteria, use MS C 6.0, OS/2, SQL, and LAN Man. All that remains the same changes. Later.
Tim_Carter@f222.n142.z1.fidonet.org (Tim Carter) (05/03/91)
* Original <24 Apr 91 20:06> was from Hao Lam > HL: TC > Prob. the cheapest way, and maybe best for you, would > HL: be > HL: TC > Turbo Pascal for Windows. It would not require you to > HL: TC > learn C (wierd stuff sometimes) and has a much lower entry > HL: TC > cost. > HL: So does that mean you have a copy? Of Turbo Pascal for Windows? No, but it should be here by early next week. C U on the bit stream, Tim
Peter_Schmidhofer@p4.f15.n246.z2.fidonet.org (Peter Schmidhofer) (05/05/91)
Hello Randy!
Once upon a time, Randy Humes wrote in a msg. to
Peter Schmidhofer at 01 May 91 something like this:
RH> exoerience. The real question I have is - what are your business and
RH> tech requirements?
I'm developing and maintaining a Win3-application written with MSC6.0/WinSDK
which is the front-end for a WAN mail system.
At the moment I'm not satisfied with this way of developing and searching for a
better method of implementing new features in the existing code than writing it
in C.
RH> Depending upon these and your personnal(or groups)
RH> level of experience will determine which package to use.
I hope you now know my experiences a little bit.
RH> database, minimal performance req. use Object1, SQL, Win3, and LAN
RH> Manager.
We use Novell, no LAN Manager :-)
RH> With C experience, large system, and tough performance
RH> criteria, use MS C 6.0, OS/2, SQL, and LAN Man.
As previous mentioned, doing it with OS/2 is impossible because there's an
existing application and our customers are Win3-users.
regards,
PeterPaul_King@f241.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Paul King) (05/06/91)
CG-> No, you've probably been confused over the fact that CG-> borland has licenced the WRT for use with Turbo pascal for CG-> Windows etc. An understandable mistake. That's what I thought his problem with that statement was in the first place. ---
Chris_Graham@f344.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Chris Graham) (05/10/91)
* Original <04 May 91 20:41:00> was from Peter Schmidhofer to Randy Humes > PS: RH> With C experience, large system, and tough performance > PS: RH> criteria, use MS C 6.0, OS/2, SQL, and LAN Man. > PS: > PS: As previous mentioned, doing it with OS/2 is impossible because > PS: there's an existing application and our customers are Win3-users. Dos workstations still have access to the services of LanMan. SQL Windows works very well with SQL server on an OS/2 server. -Chris
Peter_Schmidhofer@p4.f15.n246.z2.fidonet.org (Peter Schmidhofer) (05/12/91)
Hello Chris! Once upon a time, Chris Graham wrote in a msg. to Peter Schmidhofer at 09 May 91 something like this: >> PS: RH> With C experience, large system, and tough performance >> PS: RH> criteria, use MS C 6.0, OS/2, SQL, and LAN Man. >> PS: >> PS: As previous mentioned, doing it with OS/2 is impossible because >> PS: there's an existing application and our customers are >> Win3-users. CG> CG> Dos workstations still have access to the services of LanMan. SQL CG> Windows works very well with SQL server on an OS/2 server. But there is _no_ LanMan in the network. We are using Novell and do not intend to change to the LAN Manager. regards, Peter
producer@wam.umd.edu (Winthrop D. Chan) (05/16/91)
I'm confused! What other Whitewater products, besides the Whitewater Resources Toolit, is Borland licensing/adopting? What is ObjectWindows (as currently in TPW)? Does it has an equivalent in Actor 3.0? How about ObjectGraphics? What I am really getting at is that are there any advantages in prototyping in Actor3.0 and moving the real apps to BC++ or TPW? Enquiring mind wants to know! Winthrop Chan
jeroen_pluimers@f521.n281.z2.fidonet.org (Jeroen Pluimers) (06/02/91)
Hello Peter! In a msg of <26 May 91>, Peter Schmidhofer writes to jeroen pluimers: PS> Can you please describe the application development with Actor ? I It is a kind of interactive and interpretive language, you build your application using an interpreter that precomiles your code. Then you save the p-code into an .IMA file and create your own .EXE file with all resources and the Actor p-code executor. This means that for relative simple applications you have a .EXE of about 150k and a .IMA of about 100k. For larger applications this is not so much a problem. PS> don't have an impression of the language Actor uses. Are there PS> comparable languages or can you give a little example ? I think only smalltalk with a very good class (object) library can come close. jeroen