🚀 go-pugleaf

>let me ask: what is MacApp written in? Object Pascal? Lisa Pascal? If it were
>written in LisaPascal (which I seriously doubt), it would be useful to those
>of us who can't afford an implementation of Object Pascal (read that MPW).
>Ergo, it's written in Object Pascal. Besides, I would wager it's a huge
>amount of code to post. Can you say "A megabyte of source code?" I bet you
>can!
>

MacApp started out in the Lisa Workshop version of Object Pascal, and was
ported to MPW Pascal.  (The standard MPW Pascal compiler supports Object
Pascal.)  

The MacApp sources are about a megabyte, and the sample programs take up
another megabyte.  When you buy MacApp you get 4 diskettes and several
hundred pages of documentation.  If you just want to look at the sources,
APDA sells a printed listing.

>	Personally, I'd like to see more implementations of Object Pascal
>(Like in a future version of Lightspeed Pascal), and a leaner MacApp library
>-- one that DOESN'T need a meg and hard drive! Is a stripped MacApp possible?
>Or a MacApp consisting of modules? 
>

The simple fact is that MacApp implements a lot of features.  We had very
high standards for MacApp in terms of its adherence to the user interface
guidelines, its error handling, and its reliability.  In addition, MacApp
was designed to be very general, so that it could be used in a variety of
applications.  

It would certainly be possible to implement a MacApp-like framework that had
only the most basic features in it.  Such a framework would be more suitable
for small utility applications or for learning Macintosh programming.
Once you start implementing the rest of the MacApp features, I think you
would end up with the same amount of code as in MacApp.

One problem with dividing MacApp into separate units is that the principal
MacApp object types all refer to one another.  Right now the MPW Pascal
compiler requires that they be defined in the same unit.  (The compiler
does not permit mutually recursive USES statements.)  If that restriction
was relaxed, then we could split the MacApp unit into several pieces.

>	What frosts me is that I am a college student, a programmer of some
>experience, and a Macintosh developer of some experience, but I don't have
>the resources (hardware = $$$$ x 10**3), so all these tools that Apple are
>putting out -- and they are high-quality, too; in spite of its slowness and
>size, MPW/MacApp is REALLY powerful -- are out of my reach!

This is unfortunately true.  

MPW and MacApp are not intended for everyone.  They are simply other
alternatives for Macintosh programmers.  I think that other third party
products address the needs of the "kitchen-table" developers very well,
while MPW and MacApp address the needs of professional developers.

We would like to make MacApp available in other development systems, and
have been working with third parties to make this happen.

-- 
Larry Rosenstein

Object Specialist
Apple Computer

AppleLink: Rosenstein1
UUCP:  {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr
CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET