🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7037@alice.UUCP> shopiro@alice.UUCP writes:
>>   2) Is Object Pascal good?
>
>I don't really have an opinion.  It is Pascal.  It runs on a Mac.
>It provides support for object-oriented programming (methods),
>but not for data abstraction (data hiding, operator overloading,
>etc.).  It is simpler than C++, but then it isn't used for such a
>large range of applications on such a large range of systems as C++.
>
>> Is it available (or will it be soon) for machines other than the Macs?  Will
>> it become a standard, or will it remain an Apple oddity?
>
>For what it is worth I can mention that Apple is adopting a subset of C++
>called ``minimal C++'' as their C and that they are re-writing MacApp
>in C++.  For details, ask Larry Tesler at Apple.

We are producing a version of C++, and you will be able to access MacApp
from it, but MacApp itself will remain in Object Pascal.

Just for fun, I thought I'd mention the one big remaining objection I have to
C which isn't fixed by C++: the inability to use closures.  By this I mean
the facility which is provided by blocks in SmallTalk, LAMBDA in LISP, and
nested procedures in Pascal.  This allows you to encapsulate a bit of code
with the current lexical scope and pass it to another procedure.  We use
this capability of Pascal heavily in MacApp and its lack in C++ makes use
of MacApp a little akward.  I remember the original "Block Structure is
for The Birds" paper, but I think this is one use of nested scope which the
designers of C missed.  It would be nice if there were some way to do it
in C++.  The code you pass is basically a procedure, but it doesn't have
to have a name (nested procedures in Pascal do, but SmallTalk blocks and
Lisp lambdas don't).
-- 
David Goldsmith
Apple Computer, Inc.

AppleLink: GOLDSMITH1
UUCP:  {nsc,dual,sun,voder,ucbvax!mtxinu}!apple!dgold
CSNET: dgold@apple.CSNET, dgold%apple@CSNET-RELAY
BIX: dgoldsmith