🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1eab2mINNild@agate.berkeley.edu> jsjacob@soda.berkeley.edu (John S
>
> My question: what are the relative merits of OO languages available
> for the Mac. Indeed, what are the languages available? I know of C++
> and SmallTalk, and few others. I'm sure I don't know of all of them.

A pure OO language, SmallTalk is the language by which all OO languages are
judged.  Probably the best place to start if you want to learn OOP methods.
Avaliable on a wide variety of machines with 2 major implementations,
SmallTalk V by digitalk and SmallTalk ObjectWorks by ParcPlace.  Has its own
environment.  Typeless and very dynamic, hard to compile and not deemed
efficient enough for commercial application development.

Macintosh Common Lisp, another OO extension to Lisp.  Heard lots of good
things about it, but like SmallTalk not really viable for shrink wrap
software development.

Object Pascal, a Macintosh native, very simple but probably a dead language
as Apple is moving to C++.  A hybrid language with a strong influence from
SmallTalk.  It is also a strongly typed language.  Available as MPW Pascal
and THINK Pascal.  Language Systems will soon release a version.  There is
also a version on MS-DOS from Microsoft.  MacApp was originally written in
Object Pascal and there are still a lot of Object Pascallers out there.
Borland killed it when they released an OO version of Turbo Pascal that is
totally incompaticle with Object Pascal.  Microsoft probably abandoned
Pascal for good.

p1 Object Modula-2.  What's Modula-2?  What Pascal should have been.
Modula-2 with Object Pascal like OO extensions.  Current version works with
MacApp 2.0. Version 5.0 will be available anytime and will be compatible
with MacApp 3.0.  Bedrock will also be supported as will the PowerPC
architecture.  Contact Mr. Henne at GER.XSE0109@AppleLink.Apple.COM.

C++, C with a ton load of new features, not all of which are Object Oriented
extensions.  It keeps on growing and growing and ...  It has gained multiple
inheritance, templates and exceptions since I last used the language.  If
you want a job this is the language to learn.  Has the mark of a design by
committee but incredibly, it's mostly the work of one man.  Very complex and
like PL/1 and Ada the sum of all the features don't work very well together,
and makes it very ungainly.  Unfortunately it will be in the same league as
FORTRAN and COBOL.  MPW C++ is based on AT&T's CFront C++ to C translor.
Symantec was selling the Zortech C++ compiler.  A couple of respected Mac
developers have told me that THINK C 6.0 will be a C++ compiler and will be
available soon.  Available on just about any computers these days.  It works,
just like a Swiss army knife.

Anyone seen Objective C on the Mac?

Woody Yeung
yeung@reed.edu

In article <1992Nov17.122020.6140@reed.edu>, yeung@reed.edu (Woodrow Yeung) writes:
> In article <1eab2mINNild@agate.berkeley.edu> jsjacob@soda.berkeley.edu (John S
> >
> > My question: what are the relative merits of OO languages available
> > for the Mac. Indeed, what are the languages available? I know of C++
> > and SmallTalk, and few others. I'm sure I don't know of all of them.
> 
> [Lots of language descriptions delited.]
> 
> Woody Yeung
> yeung@reed.edu

Yerk, and its close relative Mops, are 2 Forth based OOLs. Don't let the names
scare you, they are fairly nice packages, and both trace their roots, (i.e.
they had to be renamed to avoid legal conflicts,) to the once commercially
available language Neon.  They are available by ftp from oddjob.uchicago.edu,
with docs.

Does anyone know if Oberon has object orientation?  Any opinion on whether it is
worth downloading in either case?  Reply to me if it doesn't fit into this group's
charter.  Thanks.

								/nt

In article <1eab2mINNild@agate.berkeley.edu> jsjacob@soda.berkeley.edu (John S. Jacob) writes:

>My question: what are the relative merits of OO languages available
>for the Mac. Indeed, what are the languages available? I know of C++
>and SmallTalk, and few others. I'm sure I don't know of all of them.

Try out MacOberon, a free implementation of Oberon for the Mac. Oberon
is well suited as a language to learn about Object Orientation, since
it focuses on the essentials. The book "Programming in Oberon" by
Reiser and Wirth (Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-56543-9) is exceptionally
well written. The Oberon distribution itself contains substantial
documentation as well.

MacOberon is available from neptune.ethz.ch in directory Oberon. 

The only caveat I have: MacOberon will not run with AutoDoubler
installed. I will keep bugging Fifth Generation Systems about that,
though.

Edgar

(knapp@cs.purdue.edu)

>>>>> On 17 Nov 92 12:20:20 GMT, yeung@reed.edu (Woodrow Yeung) said:

[much deleted...]

>> Anyone seen Objective C on the Mac?

If anyone knows about this, I would very much be interested too.  Even if it
is only in the basic development phases.

>> Woody Yeung
>> yeung@reed.edu

Erik
uekleinf@mcs.drexel.edu

In article <1eab2mINNild@agate.berkeley.edu>, jsjacob@soda.berkeley.edu
(John S. Jacob) wrote:
> My question: what are the relative merits of OO languages available
> for the Mac. Indeed, what are the languages available? I know of C++
> and SmallTalk, and few others. I'm sure I don't know of all of them.

Which language you use is mostly a matter of personal preference and
pragmatic considerations.  You'll probably be better off if you try to
learn object oriented desigh/programming in general, using whatever
language you want (or multiple languages), rather than just learning C++ or
SmallTalk or whatever.

I use C++ myself: partially because I used to use C, partially because I
like some of the powerful features like constructors, destructors, and
operator overloading, and partially because I use MacApp.  One warning: if
you learn C++ with a recent book and a good compiler, switching to Apple's
MPW C++ will be painful: there are no templates or exception handling. 
Maybe the rumored Think C++ will fix this.

--
John Werner                         werner@soe.berkeley.edu
UC Berkeley School of Education     510-642-9651

Well, there's Think C and Pascal, Symantec also has Zortech C++ and is
working on Bedrock, a cross-platform class library; on the MPW (Apple's
Macintosh Programmer's Workshop) side, there's C++, Object Pascal, Lisp
(I think) and maybe Modula. I'm gonna try to port the Free Software
Foundation's C, C++ and Objective-C compiler to the mac but I haven't
got it exactly right on my UNIX dialup yet. FSF is currently boycotting
Apple, Lotus and Xerox products, as well as any other look-and-feel
copyright plaintiffs (any who claim that a user interface can be
copywritten), so I have my work cut out for me.

Back to commercial products -- The think product is inexpensive, however
I feel that Symantec should be using it to develop products, on the other
hand MPW is VERY expensive but Apple _is_ using it to develop products,
and they are making improvements and other changes mainly in response to
their own needs but also, to a limited degree in response to mac developers
with Apple Partner status (costs $600/year, you can only get this if you're
another Aldus or other very large developer with substantial products out
in the mac market.

Another eventual 'must-have' is the Jasik Debugger. This monster displays
lines of your source code whether you have Think or MPW and the language
can be any of C, Pascal or Modula, and it tells you the very machine 
_instruction_ that causes the problem, whether you have a divide by zero
or a heap corruption problem. Use this for about-to-release software to
locate hard-to-find memory leakages and other problems having to do with
memory allocation.

knapp@cs.purdue.edu (Edgar Knapp) writes:

>In article <1eab2mINNild@agate.berkeley.edu> jsjacob@soda.berkeley.edu (John S. Jacob) writes:

>>My question: what are the relative merits of OO languages available
>>for the Mac. Indeed, what are the languages available? I know of C++
>>and SmallTalk, and few others. I'm sure I don't know of all of them.

>Try out MacOberon, a free implementation of Oberon for the Mac. Oberon
>is well suited as a language to learn about Object Orientation, since
>it focuses on the essentials. The book "Programming in Oberon" by
>Reiser and Wirth (Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-56543-9) is exceptionally
>well written. The Oberon distribution itself contains substantial
>documentation as well.

>MacOberon is available from neptune.ethz.ch in directory Oberon. 

>The only caveat I have: MacOberon will not run with AutoDoubler
>installed. I will keep bugging Fifth Generation Systems about that,
>though.

Is it really fair to call MacOberon a OOP language for Mac?
I'd rather describe it as something like Soft-PC, giving you a virtual
Oberon machine, totally different from anything you know about the Mac.

(I looked at it, and dumped it, mainly because of that.)

One other OOP language that deserves mentioning, is Beta. Beta is a new
language being developed at Nordic universities in the Mjolner project.
(Contact mjolner@mjolner.dk for information.)
Beta is a compiler for the MPW-environment. It uses a strong and elegant
abstraction mechanism, called a "pattern" that joins classes and procedures.
(While this is admittedly elegant, I find it extremistic and of questionable
value.)

At Information&Media Science, we have been using Beta in an introductory
programming course for three years now. In my opinion Beta is not suited
for this role, as the compiler is clumsy and slow, generating huge code.

Would someone please implement Eiffel, preferably in a package comparable
to Think Pascal? Please?

--
Lasse Hiller|e Petersen -lhp@daimi.aau.dk / "I AM THE CRAWLY CATERPILLAR, WHO
lassehp@imv.aau.dk- Info.&Media Science  / IS THE COCOON, WHO IS THE BUTTERFLY,
Aarhus University, DENMARK              / ALL AT ONCE. RIGHT NOW." -Vaughn Bode

Re: Q: What's your opinion?

Well, for my two cents worth, the more esoteric among you might want to 
investigate SIMULA, one of the oldest OO langs around (Would you believe 
25 years!) and IMHO, still one of the best.  There are OO concepts in 
SIMULA that are not even hinted at by the current spate of "pop" oo stuff 
such as C++.  The quickest way to learn about SIMULA is to track it down 
with ARCHIE on one of your friendly FTP sites, get the free Mac version 
and mess around.  You will need MPW, but little else.  Also I hear a new 
version is about to be released and if legal, will soon find its way into 
the FTP sites.

Once you discover that the Europeans have forgotten more about OOP than 
we 'Mericans ever knew, you may want to try BETA, the latest thing to 
come out of the folks that originated SIMULA 25 years ago.  BETA is also 
available for the MAC, but alas, not free.  Send to ESS@MJOLNER.DK for 
more information.

WARNING!!! Simula, and to a greater extent BETA, is not for the faint of 
mind.  These languages embody concepts that are difficult to grasp for us 
normal folks.  I programmed in Simula for about 10 years, and, while 
practically from the start I enjoyed an expressiveness unavailable in
today's 
languages, there were many features of Simula I never could quite 
"comprehend".  BETA is nearly opaque to us VonNewmannites.

I have, however, used the Mac version of Beta, and will buy the system 
when it becomes available with the run-time debugger.

Chuck

Objective-C for the Mac is available from the Stepstone Corporation.
Unfortunately you not only need MPW to use it, it offers only a basic
class library;  that is, no nice interface widgets, so it putting an
application together is still a big pile of work.

A better alternative is Prograph;  unlike Digitalk's Smalltalk for the
Mac, Prograph provides a real developer environment with things like
persistent objects, an object database built in, C and Pascal
interfaces, support for the Comm Toolbox, interface editors that make
putting together basic Mac applications a breeze, and a very good class
library.  They also provide extremely good technical support to
developers.  Digitalk ST/V has none of these things.  ST/V offers what
amounts to a closed environment:  you have to do everything in the ST
virtual machine, and it is very difficult to break out of it without
going to a lot of work.  We've used both and are very very happy with
Prograph.

Andrew Cohill
Eris:  The Virginia Tech Information System

-- 
|          ...we have to look for routes of power our teachers never       
|              imagined, or were encouraged to avoid.   T. Pynchon          
|                    
|Andrew Cohill        cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu            VPI&SU                                                  

   From: yeung@reed.edu (Woodrow Yeung)
   Date: 17 Nov 92 12:20:20 GMT

   In article <1eab2mINNild@agate.berkeley.edu> jsjacob@soda.berkeley.edu (John S
   >
   > My question: what are the relative merits of OO languages available
   > for the Mac. Indeed, what are the languages available? I know of C++
   > and SmallTalk, and few others. I'm sure I don't know of all of them.

   [deletions]

   Macintosh Common Lisp, another OO extension to Lisp.  Heard lots of good
   things about it, but like SmallTalk not really viable for shrink wrap
   software development.

Not to pick nits or anything, but MCL is not an OO extention of Lisp,
but rather it is an implementation of Common Lisp.  The Common Lisp
standard includes the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS).

Another interesting OO language is Dylan.  Essentially very similar to
Scheme but with the addition of CLOS.  It's a new language designed by
the folks at Apple, so presumably there will eventually be an
implementation for the Mac.

In article <1992Nov17.225710.4025@daimi.aau.dk> lhp@daimi.aau.dk (Lasse Hiller|e Petersen) writes:

>Is it really fair to call MacOberon a OOP language for Mac?
>I'd rather describe it as something like Soft-PC, giving you a virtual
>Oberon machine, totally different from anything you know about the Mac.
>
>(I looked at it, and dumped it, mainly because of that.)

Oberon is a language supporting inheritance, type extensions, and
dynamic binding. It's strong typing extends across module boundaries.
It's main advantages are simplicity, elegance, and price (free). 

Oberon is completely extensible, so that you can customize each and
every aspect of it (for instance enhance one of the included editors,
class browsers, or network modules with additional functions). Note
that this can be done without having to modify or recompile any of the
existing modules.

MacOberon is a program development environment, not just a compiler.
It takes a while getting used to, and a three button mouse really
helps. It nothing like SoftPC, more like MPW or one of the THINK
environments. It feels un-Mac-like since it is completely non-modal,
avoiding user interaction like the plague.

A program written in Oberon will run without modifications on Sun, DEC
and RS600 work stations (and some others). Also, the user interface is
virtually identical on all those machines.

What it being different has to do with whether or not it is object
oriented I fail to comprehend, however.

Edgar 

(knapp@cs.purdue.edu)

knapp@cs.purdue.edu (Edgar Knapp) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.225710.4025@daimi.aau.dk> lhp@daimi.aau.dk (Lasse Hiller|e Petersen) writes:

>>Is it really fair to call MacOberon a OOP language for Mac?
>>I'd rather describe it as something like Soft-PC, giving you a virtual
>>Oberon machine, totally different from anything you know about the Mac.
>>
>>(I looked at it, and dumped it, mainly because of that.)

>Oberon is a language supporting inheritance, type extensions, and
>dynamic binding. It's strong typing extends across module boundaries.
>It's main advantages are simplicity, elegance, and price (free). 

All very nice, but as it doesn't support the Macintosh I couldn't care less.
(As for it being "free": In order to use it efficiently, I'd have to buy:
1. A bigger screen. 2. A Three-button mouse. Quite expensive!)

>A program written in Oberon will run without modifications on Sun, DEC
>and RS600 work stations (and some others). Also, the user interface is
>virtually identical on all those machines.

But it also means that it stinks when it comes to integrating with
other applications on the Macintosh. If I recall my short experience with
it correctly, it didn't even support cut/paste. It did its own graphics,
I doubt if it used QuickDraw even for CopyBits!

It didn't support a multitude of screens, It didn't adapt to a standard 13"
RGB screen, so it was a pain to even try to use.
It usurped the whole screen, making it nearly impossible to use MultiFinder.

>What it being different has to do with whether or not it is object
>oriented I fail to comprehend, however.

I did not dispute that Oberon is an OOP language. However, if it can be
called a Macintosh OOP language, then any OOP language running on MS-DOS
could be so, as they can run under Soft-PC. This way they'd even
support cut/paste in a way. At least better than "Mac"Oberon.
Oberon may be nice to make Oberon programs with, but I want a Macintosh
language to make Macintosh programs for Macintosh users. (Silly, eh? :-)

An Oberon implementation for MPW, with a good OO framework encapsulating the
toolbox just *might* be worth considering.
--
Lasse Hiller|e Petersen -lhp@daimi.aau.dk / "I AM THE CRAWLY CATERPILLAR, WHO
lassehp@imv.aau.dk- Info.&Media Science  / IS THE COCOON, WHO IS THE BUTTERFLY,
Aarhus University, DENMARK              / ALL AT ONCE. RIGHT NOW." -Vaughn Bode

>> Anyone seen Objective C on the Mac?
Objective-C IS available for Mac, with IC-Pack 101 (basic data handling
classes) as a front-end compiler in the MPW environment (the one reason that
stopped me defecting from Think C - I needed a full Application framework
and class library for an application in a hurry).
 
Contact Stepstone on (203) 426 1875, fax 270 0106.
 
Andy Dent (A.D. Software - Mac & VAX programming)
94 Bermuda Dve, BALLAJURA  Western Australia  6066
Phone/Fax: 09 249 2719 (local)  +619 249 2719 (International)
nternet: dent@DIALix.oz.au    Compuserve: 100033,3241

In article <CGAY.92Nov17165314@sisters.cs.uoregon.edu>,
cgay@sisters.cs.uoregon.edu (Carl L. Gay) wrote:
> Another interesting OO language is Dylan.  Essentially very similar to
> Scheme but with the addition of CLOS.  It's a new language designed by
> the folks at Apple, so presumably there will eventually be an
> implementation for the Mac.

A clarification, the object support in Dylan is not CLOS, even
if it has elements of CLOS.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.

In <1992Nov17.225710.4025@daimi.aau.dk> lhp@daimi.aau.dk (Lasse Hiller|e Petersen) writes:

>knapp@cs.purdue.edu (Edgar Knapp) writes:

>>In article <1eab2mINNild@agate.berkeley.edu> jsjacob@soda.berkeley.edu (John S. Jacob) writes:

>>>My question: what are the relative merits of OO languages available
>>>for the Mac. Indeed, what are the languages available? I know of C++
>>>and SmallTalk, and few others. I'm sure I don't know of all of them.

>>Try out MacOberon, a free implementation of Oberon for the Mac. Oberon
>>is well suited as a language to learn about Object Orientation, since
>>it focuses on the essentials. The book "Programming in Oberon" by
>>Reiser and Wirth (Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-56543-9) is exceptionally
>>well written. The Oberon distribution itself contains substantial
>>documentation as well.

>>MacOberon is available from neptune.ethz.ch in directory Oberon. 

>>The only caveat I have: MacOberon will not run with AutoDoubler
>>installed. I will keep bugging Fifth Generation Systems about that,
>>though.

>Is it really fair to call MacOberon a OOP language for Mac?
>I'd rather describe it as something like Soft-PC, giving you a virtual
>Oberon machine, totally different from anything you know about the Mac.

>(I looked at it, and dumped it, mainly because of that.)

than you won't like MPW very much!


>One other OOP language that deserves mentioning, is Beta. Beta is a new
>language being developed at Nordic universities in the Mjolner project.
>(Contact mjolner@mjolner.dk for information.)
>Beta is a compiler for the MPW-environment. It uses a strong and elegant
>abstraction mechanism, called a "pattern" that joins classes and procedures.
>(While this is admittedly elegant, I find it extremistic and of questionable
>value.)

>At Information&Media Science, we have been using Beta in an introductory
>programming course for three years now. In my opinion Beta is not suited
>for this role, as the compiler is clumsy and slow, generating huge code.

>Would someone please implement Eiffel, preferably in a package comparable
>to Think Pascal? Please?

I heartily second that!! I used Eiffel during one of my grad classes, and it
was wonderful.  The ability to imbed pre and post conditions, as well as
loop invariants, into your code is wonderfully useful as a debugging tool, and
as a way to define a classes interface.

Anyone out there want to do this?  Please??

Disclaimer: I am working with some of the people from Mjolner, the company
that sells the Mjolner Beta System, as far as I know the only implementation
of Beta to date. So I'm probably biased on Beta. Still, the following is my
own opinion. I do not expect Mjolner nor Aarhus University to share it.

I have good experience with the Mjolner Beta system. Before I knew it I
was told that learning how to write applications for the Mac would take me
half a year. When I started learning Beta and MacEnv - the Mac application
framework that is part of the Mjolner BETA system - after 2 weeks I found
I had completed my first small Mac application.

lhp@daimi.aau.dk (Lasse Hiller|e Petersen) writes:

...
>One other OOP language that deserves mentioning, is Beta. Beta is a new
>language being developed at Nordic universities in the Mjolner project.
>(Contact mjolner@mjolner.dk for information.)
>Beta is a compiler for the MPW-environment. It uses a strong and elegant
>abstraction mechanism, called a "pattern" that joins classes and procedures.
>(While this is admittedly elegant, I find it extremistic and of questionable
>value.)

Maybe. But when classes and procedures are the same (they're all patterns),
this means that when you have virtual procedures you also have "virtual
classes" (yes!), which have proven to be a useful concept. Using e.g. the
virtual class 'eventHandler' in MacEnv comes in so natural you don't even
think about the fact that you're using a concept that doesn't exist in
other programming languages. Possibly it will some day.

>At Information&Media Science, we have been using Beta in an introductory
>programming course for three years now. In my opinion Beta is not suited
>for this role, as the compiler is clumsy and slow, generating huge code.

The BETA compiler takes too long time to compile, agree. It's being worked
on, so I don't think it will stay that way. They're also working on an
interpreter. That's going to be a nice developer's tool.

Ole
--

 Ole V. Villumsen              
 Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
 ovillumsen@daimi.aau.dk

In article <1eattdINN9dc@transfer.stratus.com> nick@sw.stratus.com (Nicolas Tamburri) writes:
>Yerk, and its close relative Mops, are 2 Forth based OOLs. Don't let the names
>scare you, they are fairly nice packages, and both trace their roots, (i.e.
>they had to be renamed to avoid legal conflicts,) to the once commercially
>available language Neon.  They are available by ftp from oddjob.uchicago.edu,
>with docs.

	Okay, here's something I've been curious about for a while. I
downloaded MOPS when I saw it, and paged quickly through the manual,
decided that it was very similar to Yerk, and filed it away on an
archive disk somewhere (as my hard drive is crammed to the rafters).
What, exactly are the differences between Yerk and MOPS? The manual
sorta said, but it mostly seemed to be identical to the Yerk manual.
	BTW, I agree that Yerk is a very flexible and deceptively
simple OOL. I get this disconcerting feeling (just like when I'm using
SmallTalk) that I'm not really doing any development at all.

>								/nt

ozymandias G desiderata
(ogd@selway.umt.edu)

-- 
----
		"Give me your hand and I'll tell you your future,
		 give me your wallet and I'll tell you your past."
			- Mudwimin, "Oom Pa Pa"

Is there any Beta compiler for free (shareware, freeware or something like that)?
I want one for UNIX or DOS, if possible. If not, forget it.
-- 
     _                           When I ear, I forget.
 _  (_   _ |_        _    _ _    When I see, I remember.
(_)  _) (_ | | \/\/ (_)\ |  _)   When I do, I understand. -- Chineese Proverb.
  )                          )

In article <1992Nov20.020144.4110@selway.umt.edu>, ogd@selway.umt.edu (ozymandias G desiderata) writes:
> What, exactly are the differences between Yerk and MOPS? The manual
> sorta said, but it mostly seemed to be identical to the Yerk manual.

The difference is mostly under the hood:  Yerk compiles tokens which are then
interpreted at runtime (indirect threading).  Mops compiles subroutine calls to
primitives (JSR threading,) and augments this by being able to compile machine
code inline when directed to do so and JSRs for longer ones.  It also does a
good bit of optimization  The result is that Mops is much faster than Yerk,
but Yerk can make it much easier to decompile and debug most routines.

									/nt

gschwarz@dcc.uchile.cl (Guillermo Schwarz Utrup (Coto)) writes:

>Is there any Beta compiler for free (shareware, freeware or something like that)?
>I want one for UNIX or DOS, if possible. If not, forget it.

No, you have to buy it. I don't know the price; write mjolner@mjolner.dk
for information. There are compilers for several machines running Unix
(sun, hp, ...), but no Dos compiler (yet?).

Ole
--

 Ole V. Villumsen              
 Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
 ovillumsen@daimi.aau.dk