🚀 go-pugleaf

apeterson@splvx1.csc.ti.com writes:

>Just when I thought I knew what I wanted to do, another piece got thrown into
>the puzzle.
Too many pieces; too many puzzles; too little time... :-)

>QUESTION:
>HOW DOES CASE:W 3.0 COMPARE WITH ACTOR 3.0 FOR APPLICATIONS DEVELOPMENT?

>I've noticed that Actor is available for a limited time at $99; is CASE:W
>offering a similiar deal?  If not, who would have the best price for CASE:W and
>is it worth it (~ 9x the price of Actor)?  It appears that CASE:W is more
>comprehensive. Is this true?  The FAQ file says that CASE:W (spelled W:CASE)
>requires the SDK.  Is this still true in light of the recent release from
>Borland (C++ 2.0)?

CASE:W is now in version 3.1. It generates C code, makefiles, resource
files, etc.  If you don't have the SDK, you'll need equivalent tools to
turn these files into an executable.  BC++ SHOULD have everything you
need.  One little problem is that CASE:W builds a makefile for use by
MSC 5.1 or MSC 6.0.  You'll have to modify the generated makefile.

CASE:W does LESS than Actor (in some sense).  Case:W generates a shell
C program, which you flesh out.  The interesting thing is that when you
make changes to this shell, if you later re-generate the shell, Case:W
DOES NOT TOUCH THE LINES YOU CHANGED. I prefer to think of it as a tool
in the sense that Lex, YACC, and make are tools.

I have sent Actor and Object/1 back to their manufacturers, because they
just crashed, did not behave as documented, etc.  Case:W does is a little
lower-level, but it does not seem to have as many problems.
-- 
Kevin Kleinfelter @ Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc (404) 239-2347
{emory,gatech}!nanovx!msa3b!kevin

Look closely at the return address.  It is nanovx and NOT nanovAx.