Nautilus 1992 July/Nautilus-3-8/Nautilus-3-8.bin/Tools & Utilities/Techy Stuff/Doco ƒ/CSMP ƒ/CSMP-V1-051.TXT

Text File | 1992-06-03 | 41.8 KB | 952 lines

C.S.M.P. Digest             Thu, 16 Apr 92       Volume 1 : Issue 51

Today's Topics:

    ? Can you rebuild desktop from a program ?
    macwrite format?
    MacApp, MS Windows, 'n things
    Precompiled Headers for MPW C++ ?
    Shutting down "background only" apps


The Comp.Sys.Mac.Programmer Digest is moderated by Michael A. Kelly.

These digests are available (by using FTP, account anonymous, your email
address as password) in the pub/mac/csmp-digest directory on ftp.cs.uoregon.
edu.  This is also the home of the comp.sys.mac.programmer Frequently Asked
Questions list.  The last several issues of the digest are available from
sumex-aim.stanford.edu as well.

These digests are also available via email.  Just send a note saying that you
want to be on the digest mailing list to [e-mail], and you will
automatically receive each new digest as it is created.

The articles in these digests are taken directly from comp.sys.mac.programmer.
They are not edited; all articles included in this digest are in their original
posted form.  The only articles that are -not- included in these digests are
those which didn't receive any replies (except those that give information
rather than ask a question).  All replies to each article are concatenated
onto the original article in the order in which they were received.  Article
threads are not added to the digests until the last article added to the
thread is at least one month old (this is to ensure that the thread is dead
before adding it to the digests).

Send administrative mail to [e-mail].

-------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mark Malson)
Subject: ? Can you rebuild desktop from a program ?
Date: 13 Mar 92 17:30:36 GMT
Organization: Harris Corporation, GCSD, Melbourne, FL

I'm working on a system where the end user could conceivably be quite Mac-illiterate.
We need to provide a list of periodic maintenance activities for him to do, like run
a de-fragmentation program, stuff like that. I figure that he may want to rebuild
the desktop every six months or so, but rather than have him do the command-option
thing at just the right time, I'd like to provide him with an application to do it
for him.

I figured there may be an Apple Event I could send to the Finder, but the AE Registry
didn't have any such thing. I also couldn't find a Desktop Database routine to do it.

I know this isn't ENTIRELY kosher, but is it possible?

P.S. I'm using system 7 only; I don't have to worry about System 6 compatibility.

- - Mark Malson

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail]
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 00:22:39 GMT

No problem.  Just move the desktop database files into another folder
where the Finder won't expect to find them (I doubt that you can delete
them since they'll be in use) then restart either the Mac (or just the
Finder) and and a new desktop database will be built.  Then delete the
old files.
- --
[e-mail]   Twisted pair: [phone]
BIX: brucehoult                 Last Resort:  PO Box 4145 Wellington, NZ
"Cray's producing a 200 MIPS personal computer with 64MB RAM and a 1 GB
hard disk that fits in your pocket!"   "Great!  Is it PC compatable?"

---------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Doug Claar)
Subject: macwrite format?
Date: 12 Mar 92 23:35:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino

I need to convert files from a unique IBM PC file format to
something the mac recognizes. Can someone provide me with
the internal format of macwrite files? I figure that if I
can create a macwrite file on the pc, I can use maclink/pc
to bring the file over to the mac. I asked once before, but
I don't think the message ever left our site...

Thanks,
- --Doug Claar
[e-mail]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail] (Joe Zobkiw)
Date: 14 Mar 92 01:47:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

If I'm not mistaken, the MacWrite format can be found in one of the many
technical notes from Apple.



- --
<--------------------------------------------------->
 joe zobkiw                     [e-mail]
 mac.synthesis.MIDI.development.C.asm.communications
>---------------------------------------------------<

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail] (Brian Kendig)
Date: 14 Mar 92 03:48:38 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Academy, Princeton University

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Claar) writes:
>I need to convert files from a unique IBM PC file format to
>something the mac recognizes. Can someone provide me with
>the internal format of macwrite files? I figure that if I
>can create a macwrite file on the pc, I can use maclink/pc
>to bring the file over to the mac.

You might want to just try converting your files through RTF (Rich
Text Format), which is supported by WriteNow, WordPerfect, and
Microsoft Word, I believe.  An RTF file is just text, but it contains
human-readable formatting commands.  The benefit of using RTF for your
conversions is that if you need to know how a particular kind of
formatting is done in RTF, you just load up a word processor on your
Mac, type up something that uses that kind of formatting, save your
file as RTF, then open the RTF file as text and look at the commands.

Also, this means that you can create the RTF files on your IBM PC then
read them with Apple File Exchange on your Mac without having to use
any conversion filters.

     << Brian >>

- --
| Brian S. Kendig       --/\-- Tri     [e-mail], @PUCC
| Computer Science BSE  |/  \| Quad  You gave your life to become the person
| Princeton University  /____\ clubs    you are right now.  Was it worth it?

---------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Dominy)
Subject: MacApp, MS Windows, 'n things
Date: 26 Feb 92 18:45:33 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

In the latest issue of Frameworks, it was mentioned that at the MADA
meeting at MacWorld that MacApp would be going cross-platform.  The
article went on to say that while no specifics were mentioned there
was a lot of noise about MS Windows being that cross-platform.

My question to the net is: with the annual MADA meeting being held this
week in Orlando, has any additional information come out on a cross-
platform MacApp by Apple (i.e., when? which platforms (UNIX? Windows?))?

- ------------------------------
Robert Dominy
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center



- -------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim (James) Ruehlin)
Subject:  MacApp, MS Windows, 'n things
Date: 27 Feb 92 23:43:10 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Dominy) writes:
>In the latest issue of Frameworks, it was mentioned that at the MADA
>meeting at MacWorld that MacApp would be going cross-platform.  The
>article went on to say that while no specifics were mentioned there
>was a lot of noise about MS Windows being that cross-platform.

Being I full-time Windows programmer and a sometimes Mac programmer, I can't
see why Apple would want to do this.  Even the poorest development environment
for Windows programming is much easier to use than MacApp.  MacApp still uses
technology designed 15 years ago for Unix.  You can write macros and extra
development tools in MacApp, which is nice.  But the usability is so poor
that even PC environments are delightful to use in comparison.

- Jim Ruehlin



- -------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Keith Rollin)
Subject:  MacApp, MS Windows, 'n things
Date: 2 Mar 92 21:45:32 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim (James) Ruehlin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Dominy) writes:
>>In the latest issue of Frameworks, it was mentioned that at the MADA
>>meeting at MacWorld that MacApp would be going cross-platform.  The
>>article went on to say that while no specifics were mentioned there
>>was a lot of noise about MS Windows being that cross-platform.
>
>Being I full-time Windows programmer and a sometimes Mac programmer, I can't
>see why Apple would want to do this.  Even the poorest development environment
>for Windows programming is much easier to use than MacApp.  MacApp still uses
>technology designed 15 years ago for Unix.  You can write macros and extra
>development tools in MacApp, which is nice.  But the usability is so poor
>that even PC environments are delightful to use in comparison.

Jim, my friend, I think that you are sorely confused (that probably
comes from being a Windows programmer  :-). First of all, you say "...why
Apple would want to do this." However, the original poster talked about
MADA, which is not part of Apple in any way. MADA, formerly the MacApp
Developer's Association, is a non-profit group that supports MacApp
developers (and now, apparently, developers using other object-oriented
frameworks). What Apple wants or doesn't want has nothing to do with
it.

Second, from your comments, I think you are confusing MacApp with MPW.
MacApp is an application framework; MPW is a development environment.
The two are totally different things. Yes, MPW has its roots or flavor
based on UNIX, but many people find it preferable to the alternatives
out there. MacApp, on the other hand, is not based on anything from
UNIX, let alone 15 year old technology, and is more advanced than any
other object framework I've seen for a PC.

--
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Rollin           ---            <Taligent .signature under construction>
Disclaimer: Pretty soon, I really _won't_ be speaking for Apple...



- -------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Keith R. Fieldhouse)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 13:49:24 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Rollin) writes:
>
>Jim, my friend, I think that you are sorely confused (that probably
>comes from being a Windows programmer  :-). First of all, you say "...why
>Apple would want to do this." However, the original poster talked about
>MADA, which is not part of Apple in any way. MADA, formerly the MacApp
>Developer's Association, is a non-profit group that supports MacApp
>developers (and now, apparently, developers using other object-oriented
>frameworks). What Apple wants or doesn't want has nothing to do with
>it.

No. At the MADA conference in Orlando, Apple made it very clear that
APPLE intends to make MacApp/MS-Windows available in at a least a Beta form
in the next 12 - 18 months.  At the same time they indicated that they'd
be willing to work out a deal with developers who had (illicitly) ported
MacApp to Windows already.  One condition of these deals was that the
developer is already shipping an equivilant Mac product before shipping
for Windows.  It occurs to me (though it wasn't stated) that a similar
arrangement might be true with the Apple MacApp/MS-Windows product. In
any event it was clear that Apple understood the pressure on developers
to go cross platform and wants to help (presumably to avoid having their
developers jump ship entirely?).   e


                        - Keith Fieldhouse
                          [e-mail]
- --
Keith R. Fieldhouse            [e-mail]        "READY?"

- -------------------------

From: jim@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 22:40:26 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Rollin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim (James) Ruehlin) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Dominy) writes:
>>>In the latest issue of Frameworks, it was mentioned that at the MADA
>>>meeting at MacWorld that MacApp would be going cross-platform.  The
>>>article went on to say that while no specifics were mentioned there
>>>was a lot of noise about MS Windows being that cross-platform.
>>
>
>Jim, my friend, I think that you are sorely confused (that probably
>comes from being a Windows programmer  :-). First of all, you say "...why
>Apple would want to do this." However, the original poster talked about
>MADA, which is not part of Apple in any way. MADA, formerly the MacApp
>Developer's Association, is a non-profit group that supports MacApp
>developers (and now, apparently, developers using other object-oriented
>frameworks). What Apple wants or doesn't want has nothing to do with
>it.

After re-reading the original article, I have to agree - I was confused &-)

However, my basic sentiment still applies.  I've used MacApp a bit, and used
2 different C++ libraries on Windows as well.  I've also looked at
Microsoft's new offering, though not very thuroughly.

IMO, MacApp lags behind Borlands Object Windows Librarys (for the C++
environment, at least).  MacApp isn't designed for the Windows platform
like the Microsoft Class Library is.  MacApp is better than CommonVu for
serious programming, but I've always thought that simple stuff can take
advantage of CommonVu's easy class interface best.

>Second, from your comments, I think you are confusing MacApp with MPW.
>MacApp is an application framework; MPW is a development environment.
>The two are totally different things. Yes, MPW has its roots or flavor
>based on UNIX, but many people find it preferable to the alternatives
>out there. MacApp, on the other hand, is not based on anything from
>UNIX, let alone 15 year old technology, and is more advanced than any
>other object framework I've seen for a PC.

Obviously, I have to disagree with your last statement.
It's a shame, but the Mac has poor development offerings compared to
Windows.  I like Mac programming better than Windows programming, but
I have to admit it's usually a lot easier to do what you need to do in
Windows than on the Mac (in terms of development).

Jim Ruehlin
NCR Corp.

I don't speak for NCR Corp, AT&T, Terradata, or any other high-technology
firm the conglomerate may have purchased without my knowledge.


- -------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jeff J Barczewski 52824)
Date:  4 Mar 92 22:02:52 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

[e-mail] (Keith Rollin) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim (James) Ruehlin) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Dominy) writes:
>>>In the latest issue of Frameworks, it was mentioned that at the MADA
>>>meeting at MacWorld that MacApp would be going cross-platform.  The
>>>article went on to say that while no specifics were mentioned there
>>>was a lot of noise about MS Windows being that cross-platform.
>>
>>Being I full-time Windows programmer and a sometimes Mac programmer, I can't
>>see why Apple would want to do this.  Even the poorest development environment
>>for Windows programming is much easier to use than MacApp.  MacApp still uses
>>technology designed 15 years ago for Unix.  You can write macros and extra
>>development tools in MacApp, which is nice.  But the usability is so poor
>>that even PC environments are delightful to use in comparison.

>Jim, my friend, I think that you are sorely confused (that probably
>comes from being a Windows programmer  :-). First of all, you say "...why
>Apple would want to do this." However, the original poster talked about
>MADA, which is not part of Apple in any way. MADA, formerly the MacApp
>Developer's Association, is a non-profit group that supports MacApp
>developers (and now, apparently, developers using other object-oriented
>frameworks). What Apple wants or doesn't want has nothing to do with
>it.

>Second, from your comments, I think you are confusing MacApp with MPW.
>MacApp is an application framework; MPW is a development environment.
>The two are totally different things. Yes, MPW has its roots or flavor
>based on UNIX, but many people find it preferable to the alternatives
>out there. MacApp, on the other hand, is not based on anything from
>UNIX, let alone 15 year old technology, and is more advanced than any
>other object framework I've seen for a PC.

Or any other platform for that matter including (UNIX).



>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Keith Rollin           ---            <Taligent .signature under construction>
>Disclaimer: Pretty soon, I really _won't_ be speaking for Apple...

- -------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jeff J Barczewski 52824)
Date:  4 Mar 92 22:05:41 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

jim@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Rollin) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim (James) Ruehlin) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Dominy) writes:
>>>>In the latest issue of Frameworks, it was mentioned that at the MADA
>>>>meeting at MacWorld that MacApp would be going cross-platform.  The
>>>>article went on to say that while no specifics were mentioned there
>>>>was a lot of noise about MS Windows being that cross-platform.
>>>
>>
>>Jim, my friend, I think that you are sorely confused (that probably
>>comes from being a Windows programmer  :-). First of all, you say "...why
>>Apple would want to do this." However, the original poster talked about
>>MADA, which is not part of Apple in any way. MADA, formerly the MacApp
>>Developer's Association, is a non-profit group that supports MacApp
>>developers (and now, apparently, developers using other object-oriented
>>frameworks). What Apple wants or doesn't want has nothing to do with
>>it.

>After re-reading the original article, I have to agree - I was confused &-)

>However, my basic sentiment still applies.  I've used MacApp a bit, and used
>2 different C++ libraries on Windows as well.  I've also looked at
>Microsoft's new offering, though not very thuroughly.

>IMO, MacApp lags behind Borlands Object Windows Librarys (for the C++
>environment, at least).  MacApp isn't designed for the Windows platform
>like the Microsoft Class Library is.  MacApp is better than CommonVu for
>serious programming, but I've always thought that simple stuff can take
>advantage of CommonVu's easy class interface best.

>>Second, from your comments, I think you are confusing MacApp with MPW.
>>MacApp is an application framework; MPW is a development environment.
>>The two are totally different things. Yes, MPW has its roots or flavor
>>based on UNIX, but many people find it preferable to the alternatives
>>out there. MacApp, on the other hand, is not based on anything from
>>UNIX, let alone 15 year old technology, and is more advanced than any
>>other object framework I've seen for a PC.

>Obviously, I have to disagree with your last statement.
>It's a shame, but the Mac has poor development offerings compared to
>Windows.  I like Mac programming better than Windows programming, but
>I have to admit it's usually a lot easier to do what you need to do in
>Windows than on the Mac (in terms of development).

Are you kidding? I disagree and if my word is not worth anything
check out some of the past issues of Byte they seemed to disagree
as well.




>Jim Ruehlin
>NCR Corp.

>I don't speak for NCR Corp, AT&T, Terradata, or any other high-technology
>firm the conglomerate may have purchased without my knowledge.


- -------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Dominy)
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 15:12:47 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, jim@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin) writes:
> However, my basic sentiment still applies.  I've used MacApp a bit, and used
> 2 different C++ libraries on Windows as well.  I've also looked at
> [more ranting deleted]

Let's get something straight.  I asked for information on what people
had heard about MacApp going cross-platform - NOT opinions from MS
Windows weenies on whether they thought it was a good idea or not.
Further, if you want to create a flame war on who's got the best
programming environment, then take it somewhere else -- we've heard
this all before.  This is comp.sys.mac.programmer and most of us are
here because we like programming the Mac, and I for one have found
that MPW, MacApp and the like far exceed the tools I've used on
other platforms.

Enought said.  For those interested in a little extra information on
MacApp going to Windows, take a look at this weeks MacWeek.  One
interesting note is the article quotes Apple as saying that they'll
be bringing out cross-platform tools in the next 12-18 months (sorry
don't have the issue here with me now to quote exactly), but he never
actually said that that tool would be MacApp.  In fact it almost sounded
like there was some other tool/library under development.  Does anyone
who was at the conference have anymore specifics?

- --------------------------------
Robert Dominy
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

- -------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kent Sandvik)
Date: 5 Mar 92 20:34:31 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim (James) Ruehlin) writes:
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Dominy) writes:
> >In the latest issue of Frameworks, it was mentioned that at the MADA
> >meeting at MacWorld that MacApp would be going cross-platform.  The
> >article went on to say that while no specifics were mentioned there
> >was a lot of noise about MS Windows being that cross-platform.
>
> Being I full-time Windows programmer and a sometimes Mac programmer, I can't
> see why Apple would want to do this.  Even the poorest development environment
> for Windows programming is much easier to use than MacApp.  MacApp still uses
> technology designed 15 years ago for Unix.  You can write macros and extra
> development tools in MacApp, which is nice.  But the usability is so poor
> that even PC environments are delightful to use in comparison.

I think there's a separation between a framework and a development environment.
Think Pascal users swear their environment in combination with MacApp beats
Borland/Messy-Windows quite easily. As for UNIX environments, I do know a lot
of UNIX hackers that would be offended by this statement. There's a certain feel
of power when you are able to do *anything*, instead of wimping around with
user-friendly popup-menus.

Please separate the issue of MacApp and MPW, they are *two* different entities.

Cheers,
Kent Sandvik

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail] (Jim Spencer)
Date: 7 Mar 92 04:25:41 GMT


 RD> Enought said.  For those interested in a little extra information on
 RD> MacApp going to Windows, take a look at this weeks MacWeek.  One
 RD> interesting note is the article quotes Apple as saying that they'll
 RD> be bringing out cross-platform tools in the next 12-18 months (sorry
 RD> don't have the issue here with me now to quote exactly), but he never
 RD> actually said that that tool would be MacApp.  In fact it almost sounded
 RD> like there was some other tool/library under development.  Does anyone
 RD> who was at the conference have anymore specifics?

My understanding of what was being said was that Apple (as I recall the
statement was made by Steve Weyl) is or will be working on specifically a
MacApp port of some type to windows.  I've not seen the MacWeek article
but I suspect the confusion results from the relatively frequent hints which
were emitted by various speakers all week long regarding Taligent.  These
hints indicated that Apple intends to create a path for developers to use
to move to Pink and that MacAppers will be in an excellant position for
the move but that this will not be just another version of MacApp for a
new OS.  This issue however is different than the question of cross-platform
development using MacApp.  It was this latter question that the 12-18 month
time frame refers to.  (Or so I understand it.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail]
Date: 6 Mar 92 21:27:43 CST
Organization: University of Missouri Computing Services

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim (James) Ruehlin) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Dominy) writes:
>>In the latest issue of Frameworks, it was mentioned that at the MADA
>>meeting at MacWorld that MacApp would be going cross-platform.  The
>>article went on to say that while no specifics were mentioned there
>>was a lot of noise about MS Windows being that cross-platform.
>
> Being I full-time Windows programmer and a sometimes Mac programmer, I can't
> see why Apple would want to do this.  Even the poorest development environment
> for Windows programming is much easier to use than MacApp.  MacApp still uses
> technology designed 15 years ago for Unix.  You can write macros and extra
> development tools in MacApp, which is nice.  But the usability is so poor
> that even PC environments are delightful to use in comparison.
>
> - Jim Ruehlin

Jim, I think you are confusing MPW with MacApp. MPW (Macintosh Programmers
Workshop) is expensive and "unix-y," but it is *very* powerful. And open.
You can buy compilers for it from many sources. Try plugging a fortran
compiler into borland (as for user interface: try comparing a Symantic
programing environment (think C/Pascal) to *any* DOS platform <snicker>).

MacApp, on the other hand is an object class library for building
applications that comply with the mac interface. It is *very* powerful
and has nothing whatsoever to do with your development environment.
Porting it to Windows would make life much easier for developers who
need to maintain code on both platforms. If Claris, for example, is
going to go full-bore into the windows arena, it makes sense for
their class library to be cross platform.

Jonathan/[e-mail]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail] (Kent Sandvik)
Date: 9 Mar 92 01:40:14 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <mr5s=#[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Keith R. Fieldhouse)
writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Rollin) writes:
> >Jim, my friend, I think that you are sorely confused (that probably
> >comes from being a Windows programmer  :-). First of all, you say "...why
> >Apple would want to do this." However, the original poster talked about
> >MADA, which is not part of Apple in any way. MADA, formerly the MacApp
> >Developer's Association, is a non-profit group that supports MacApp
> >developers (and now, apparently, developers using other object-oriented
> >frameworks). What Apple wants or doesn't want has nothing to do with
> >it.

> No. At the MADA conference in Orlando, Apple made it very clear that
> APPLE intends to make MacApp/MS-Windows available in at a least a Beta form
> in the next 12 - 18 months.  At the same time they indicated that they'd
> be willing to work out a deal with developers who had (illicitly) ported
> MacApp to Windows already.  One condition of these deals was that the
> developer is already shipping an equivilant Mac product before shipping
> for Windows.  It occurs to me (though it wasn't stated) that a similar
> arrangement might be true with the Apple MacApp/MS-Windows product. In
> any event it was clear that Apple understood the pressure on developers
> to go cross platform and wants to help (presumably to avoid having their
> developers jump ship entirely?).   e

Hi, I don't think Keith stated that 'why should Apple do something similar'
(i.e. create a framework for Messy-Windows programming). I think the big
guys in DTE have hinted about this during the early 1992 already, and this
also happened at MADA-Orlando. He just tried to point out that MADA has
nothing to do with Apple DTE work (DTE - Developer Tools Engineering).
And Keith certainly knows/knew about these plans, as an oldtimer MacApp
DTS engineer.

Anyway, MacApp for Windows would certainly show the other framework vendors
how a professional OO framework should look like!

Cheers,
Kent
- --
Kent Sandvik - Apple DTS  - Dynamic Language Evangelist
[e-mail]
All opinions expressed are my own, and not related to any company or
organization.
Happy, happy, joy, joy!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail] (Eric Berdahl)
Date: 12 Mar 92 22:33:36 GMT
Organization: MADA

Speaking for MADA, let me say that I am terribly sorry that everyone reading
this wasnUt able to attend the conference in Orlando.  You missed some really
cool presentations, Florida sun, and a company-paid trip to Disney world :-).
Luckilly, happy souls here are more than happy to spread the news.  Here's my
two cents.

First, the subject of MADA's charter has been raised.  MADA, formerly the
MacApp Developers' Association, is no longer tied to MacApp.  Instead, we are
interested in object technologies in general.  However, we are a member-driven
group, and the vast majority of our membership is interested in MacApp and
Macintosh, so don't expect us to change stripes overnight.  I do know of a specific
effort underway to begin addressing Macintosh Common Lisp as a SIG, and I know
there are other SIGs trying to form, possibly even one to deal with Windows, but
the core of everything is object technologies.

If you like objects, you'll probably feel comfortable in MADA.

Second, I'll parrot what Steve Weyl said at the conference.  Apple intends to develop
an object-based framework that will provide cross-platform capabilities.  Windows and
Macintosh were specifically mentioned as being in the "cross-platform" suite they
want to address.

Also, the Taligent name _was_ mentioned quite a bit, although nobody wanted to go on
record as saying anything about it.  Steve Weyl, in a videotape shown at the conference,
stated that one of Apple's goals is to allow users of their frameworks to have an easy
migration path to the Taligent Operating System [you should have seen sleepy heads pop
up at that comment].

Now, for those interested in hearing the juicy bits as they occur, you may join MADA
by calling 206-252-6946 or sending e-mail to [e-mail].  MADA
representatives will be happy to send you information or take an order.  Our conference
next year will be in sunny San Diego at the [cool hotel whose name I can't remember]
Beach and Racquetball Club.  Watch this space for teasers of the really cool stuff
people will be announcing!!

- --
Eric Berdahl
President, MADA
Internet: [e-mail]
AppleLink: BERDAHL
MaBell: [phone]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail] (Kent Sandvik)
Date: 11 Mar 92 20:21:02 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <[e-mail]>,
jim@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin) writes:
> IMO, MacApp lags behind Borlands Object Windows Librarys (for the C++
> environment, at least).  MacApp isn't designed for the Windows platform
> like the Microsoft Class Library is.  MacApp is better than CommonVu for
> serious programming, but I've always thought that simple stuff can take
> advantage of CommonVu's easy class interface best.

Hi, I would like to know what's much better with OWL compared with
MacApp 3.0, and we should not talk about Windows issues, because OWL
is lousy for MacOS programming :-).

> Obviously, I have to disagree with your last statement.
> It's a shame, but the Mac has poor development offerings compared to
> Windows.  I like Mac programming better than Windows programming, but
> I have to admit it's usually a lot easier to do what you need to do in
> Windows than on the Mac (in terms of development).

Also, what's much better with for instance a Borland environment
compared with Think C/Pascal?

Cheers,
Kent Sandvik
- --
Kent Sandvik - Apple DTS  - Dynamic Language Evangelist
[e-mail]
All opinions expressed are my own, and not related to any company or
organization. Happy, happy, joy, joy!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail] (Don Wilcox)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 18:14:18 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Also, what's much better with for instance a Borland environment
>compared with Think C/Pascal?

I enter this discussion unwillingly.  If it weren't for the fact that there
seem to be very few people who really program on both Mac and MSDOS/Windows
on the net, I would just keep out.  However, I write commercial software on
the PC (Windows and DOS), have done commercial work on the Mac (now it is mostly
academic stuff on the Mac), and so I feel somewhat qualified to jump in.

Now for disclaimer #2.  I like ThinkC's environment.  There are things I
would like to see changed, but for the kinds of stuff I do on the Mac, it is
just fine.

Nevertheless, I find Borland's products to be superior to Symantec's for a
number of reasons (besides the obvious fact that it is difficult to write
a Windows program using ThinkC :-).   First, you get a real command line
(from MSDOS), from which you can use more powerful tools like grep, lex, yacc.
While MSDOS isn't Unix (it's not even MPW), as a programmer I like to be able
to type what I want once in a while.

Second, the environment is extensible.  That is, I can install Bison to
translate my grammar files into c, and then compile .y files.

Third, the compiler is really 4 compilers.  I can get it to compile old-
style K&R C, ANSI C, C++, or Borland's extensions to C.  Each offers some
aggressive optimizations, which seem to be fairly well-done.  At least,
preliminary bug reports have been few.  You also get command-line compilers
which allow you to do make, etc.  There is also an assembler (both built-in
and separate), a standalone debugger and profiler, make, grep.  You don't
get source control stuff (shame).

Fourth, the compiler will report all my compilation errors, stop on the
first, compile one file and stop, or whatever I want.  I write compilers
myself, and I understand the complexities of error recovery, but Borland's
compiler does a really excellent job.  With no obvious performance penalty,
since it seems to compile straight C faster than ThinkC (this is actually a
meaningless comparison, and so it should be ignored.  Pretend like I never
said it.  However, to keep flames to a minimum, my comparisons are based
upon ThinkC on an fx, and BC on a 386/20.  Like I said, ignore this whole
section).

Fifth, the compiler provides a wide range of warning messages.  In fact,
the messages are nearly as extensive as those provided by lint.  At least,
the insights that lint provides over Borland are not of the sort that I am
likely to make.  Besides, if I really want lint, I can get it for the PC
and use it.  Tough to do with ThinkC.

So what do I prefer about ThinkC?  I though about saying "It's on the Mac,"
but that just means I have to write Mac apps, and to be perfectly honest,
Windows apps and DOS apps are easier to write.  For me (and such things are
always a matter of opinion), Borland's products do more for my productivity
that do Symantec's.  This may be in part due to the fact that Borland has
had more practice.

This has probably gone on long enough.  I'm starting to sound like an
evangelist for Borland, when in fact I'm nothing but one of their longest-
standing customers (I still have Turbo Pascal 1.0 disks).

I wouldn't mind if everyone ignored this posting and the whole thing died,
but Kent asked a question, and I have an answer.  At most, let's discuss
the merits, if for no other reason than Symantec might be listening.
>
>Cheers,
>Kent Sandvik
>--
>Kent Sandvik - Apple DTS  - Dynamic Language Evangelist
>[e-mail]

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled program...
Don Wilcox                         | "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of
Washington University in St. Louis |   Christ, for it is the power of salvation
email: [e-mail]         |   to all who believe."

---------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andrew E Page)
Subject: Precompiled Headers for MPW C++ ?
Date: 2 Mar 92 19:08:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

I'm starting to do some serious C++ work with MPW 3.2 and Cplus (CFront
vers 3.2b3) and find that I am missing the precompiled hearders feature
of MPW C very much.  Is there any way that this is implemented or will
be implented for C++?



--
Andrew E. Page CTO(Warrior Poet)|   Decision and Effort The Archer and Arrow
DSP Ironworks                   |     The difference between what we are
Macintosh and DSP Technology    |           and what we want to be.



- -------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mark Lanett)
Subject:  Precompiled Headers for MPW C++ ?
Date: 2 Mar 92 20:15:05 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

[e-mail] (Andrew E Page) writes:

>I'm starting to do some serious C++ work with MPW 3.2 and Cplus (CFront
>vers 3.2b3) and find that I am missing the precompiled hearders feature
>of MPW C very much.  Is there any way that this is implemented or will
>be implented for C++?

Help CPlus
[some editing]
    -dump filename          # save state of C++ compilation in filename
    -dumpc filename         # save state of C++ compilation in filename (compressed)
    -load filename          # load saved C++ compilation state from filename


Looks like it's there to me. (#pragma load/dump *won't* work).

>--
>Andrew E. Page CTO(Warrior Poet)|   Decision and Effort The Archer and Arrow
>DSP Ironworks                   |     The difference between what we are
>Macintosh and DSP Technology    |           and what we want to be.
--
Mark Lanett                                                   [e-mail]
Software Tools Group, NCSA, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign



- -------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Cory Kempf)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 22:30:59 EST
Organization: EnigamI, Inc., Nashua, NH


In article <[e-mail]> (comp.sys.mac.programmer), [e-mail] (Andrew E Page) writes:
>I'm starting to do some serious C++ work with MPW 3.2 and Cplus (CFront
>vers 3.2b3) and find that I am missing the precompiled hearders feature
>of MPW C very much.  Is there any way that this is implemented or will
>be implented for C++?

Actually it is already inplimented!  It is called Load/Dump.  Essentially
what you do is create a dump file of the includes, and then load it
back in to each compile.  It does require some special coding (e.g.
surounding all #includes with #ifndef __FLAGNAME___ and #endif), but
the speed improvement is rather dramatic.

+C


- -------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Kempf                    EnigamI, Inc.
[e-mail]           ...!decvax!enigami!cory

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail] (Kent Sandvik)
Date: 8 Mar 92 01:49:34 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andrew E Page) writes:
>
> I'm starting to do some serious C++ work with MPW 3.2 and Cplus (CFront
> vers 3.2b3) and find that I am missing the precompiled hearders feature
> of MPW C very much.  Is there any way that this is implemented or will
> be implented for C++?

To start with, #pragma dump/load sort of works, but we recommend to use the
separate Cfront -load -dump features, this because MPW C++ generates new C code,
and one is never sure where those #pragmas are reissued.

See Release Notes, MPW C++, of how to use load/dump, or read my MacApp/C++ FAQ,
somewhere on ftp.apple.com.

Cheers,
Kent

- --
Kent Sandvik - Apple DTS  - Dynamic Language Evangelist
[e-mail]
All opinions expressed are my own, and not related to any company or
organization. Happy, happy, joy, joy!

---------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gerald Siek)
Subject: Shutting down "background only" apps
Date: 2 Mar 92 15:33:49 GMT
Organization: University of Paderborn, Germany

Hello networld,

I have written a program that runs in in "background only" mode (and is thus
invisible at finder level) and which is shut down by a remote high level event.
The program terminates properly but it's icon remains highlighted as "Open".
So what can I do to tell the Finder that the background application has quit?

Thanks for any answer !
    Jerry

- --
  Gerald Siek  -  [e-mail]  -  University of Paderborn, Germany

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail] (Jim Reekes)
Date: 11 Mar 92 22:49:08 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gerald Siek) writes:
>
> Hello networld,
>
> I have written a program that runs in in "background only" mode (and is thus
> invisible at finder level) and which is shut down by a remote high level event.
> The program terminates properly but it's icon remains highlighted as "Open".
> So what can I do to tell the Finder that the background application has quit?

This is because you have given the file the wrong file type.  It should be
'appe' not 'APPL'.  The former is for background-only application and will
be magically routed into the Extensions folder.  These applications are also
launched automatically when in the Extensions folder.

The reason the icon stays highlighted (i.e. in the "Open" state) is because
a background-only application  doesn't behave as double-clickable application.
Standard applications will DrawMenuBar and the Finder is waiting for this
to know that the icon can be drawn back to its standard state.


- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Reekes, E.O.             |     Macintosh Toolbox Engineering
                             |          Sound Manager Expert
Apple Computer, Inc.         | All opinions expressed are mine, and
20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 81-EQ |  do not necessarily represent those
Cupertino, CA 95014          |  of my employer, Apple Computer Inc.

---------------------------

End of C.S.M.P. Digest
**********************