home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- st4pt@rosie.uh.edu (donald TAKESHI mcfall) wrote:
- >
- > In article <3d8eli$b2o@beta.inc.net>, syndesis@beta.inc.net (John Foust) writes...
- > >The Mac back-end of the VC 2.0 compiler has its limits; there are
- > >many Win32 functions that are not implemented. For example, no DLLs.
- > >Great swaths of functions are not implemented. If you own VC 2.0,
- > >check the online docs, there's a function-by-function explanation of
- > >which are working and which aren't.
- > >
- > >If you don't know what's needed to move LightWave's code to another
- > >platform, why are you confident it would be "extremely simple"?
-
- Easy, I wasn't aware that VC++ 2.0 was so weak on their porting abilities.
- All I have read was their adds trying to convice me that I should drop $2000
- to upgrade to it.
-
- > From what I hear, the Mac's a real pain to program anyway... :)
-
- Nope. Any mac compiler can do 32 bit graphics. I've written my own
- paint program as a class project for graphics class many moons ago.
- I have yet to figure out how to get my Microsoft c++ 7 to do more than
- 256 colors at a time. Image manipulation, and graphics are a snap on
- the mac. The mac guts are very well documented. Apple may say "don't
- touch this data," but they then procede to tell you exacly where the
- data you shuldn't touch is, and what the format is. I hear microsoft's
- stuff is full of little secrets (which was brought up in many lawsuits
- of monopoly within the last 3 years). The only thing that is difficult
- about programming the mac is the fact that you have to deal with buttons
- and menus and windows ... but then you have to learn to do the same for
- MS windows too don't you? It is simply a different form of programming
- than the non-modal command line only programming that you may be used
- to in simple dos, vms, unix, etc... programming.
-
- Shawn Joyce
- joyces@acm.org
-
-
-
-