Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Archive » net.micro.apple » Macprogramming.
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Macprogramming. [message #75995] Wed, 29 May 2013 20:00 Go to next message
len is currently offline  len
Messages: 79
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Member
Message-ID: <131@qumix.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 6-Oct-84 22:19:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: qumix.131
Posted: Sat Oct  6 22:19:35 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Oct-84 21:56:42 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Qume Corp., San Jose, CA
Lines: 44


Does anyone have any insights on what's the best program language
software available or soon to be available for the Mac.  What I've
heard about so far is:

1. Modula II -a superset of pascal.  I've heard the least expensive
versions aren't that good.

2. Forth - 3 levels with rapidly escalated prices as you progress.  A
fast executing language, the dictionary is neat, the way the stack
handles arithmentic is not so neat.

3. C -I hear it has bugs in the released version.  For around $2k
(gasp!) you can buy a cross-assembler version to run on your mainframe.
Q.- Since we have Unix 4.2 and a C compilor at work anyway, why isn't
there a cheaper, better way to go on this?  It seems like a terminal
emulator program with download and some primitive vax to Mac toolkit
algorithums would be all you'd need.  I guess they wouldn't make enough
money that way.

4. Fortran 77 - This also runs on our vax but I see no vax support on
that advertisement.

5. Pascal - Nice, clean structured language but less I/O capabilities
than Modula II.  Probably slower execution speed that Forth.

6. Mbasic - Now there's a language everybody understands.
Unfortanately, it's slow and I unless you get something like waterloo
basic, you get tired of using go to's and yearn for something more
structured after awhile.  Cbasic is fast but I don't think they have
that for the Mac yet.

7. Let's see, what have I missed.  I haven't seen 68000 assembly
language available for the single 128k Mac yet.  The only answer I got
as to why was that nobody wants to write programs that are limited to
64k.  My answer was "well, why don't you let us at least TRY."  If that
was the only reason, we should see it come out for the 512k version
eventually.

8.  What decides which is the "best" programmming language for the Mac?
My thoughts- price, availability, no bugs, transportability, ease to
learn it, execution speed, development time, ease of understanding to
other programmers, program structure, I/O capability, and documentation
either built into the SW or in the manuals.
Re: Macprogramming. [message #76011 is a reply to message #75995] Wed, 29 May 2013 20:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ning is currently offline  ning
Messages: 7
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Message-ID: <5400002@ur-univax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Oct-84 05:20:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ur-univa.5400002
Posted: Mon Oct  8 05:20:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Oct-84 19:38:05 EDT
References: <131@qumix.UUCP>
Organization: University of Rochester: Computing Center
Lines: 58
Nf-ID: #R:qumix:-13100:ur-univax:5400002:000:3028
Nf-From: ur-univax!ning    Oct  8 05:20:00 1984



 > 	Does anyone have any insights on what's the best program language
 > 	software available or soon to be available for the Mac...
...
 > 	What decides which is the "best" programmming language for the Mac?
 > 	My thoughts- price, availability, no bugs, transportability, ease to
 > 	learn it, execution speed, development time, ease of understanding to
 > 	other programmers, program structure, I/O capability, and documentation
 > 	either built into the SW or in the manuals.


Some years ago, just as Pascal became popular, we read and heard much about
using the "correct" programming language.  Arguments abounded about using the
correct level of abstraction in a program versus arguments the speed and
efficieny of it's resulting code.  You couldn't beat the Fortran jock by
writing faster code, but you couldn't beat the his Pascal opponent by
implementing more elegant and sophisticated algorithms. Doesn't the same
argument hold true when choosing the correct langauge for the Macintosh?

Who won?  Well, absolutely no one starts a new project using Fortran; however,
not many use Pascal, either.  It seems that no one won.  Many programmers
prefer C; critical applications demand assembly langauge; and a good deal of
business gets done over APL and some coffee.  The point that I am trying to
make is that the right langauge should provide the right level abstraction for
the task, and more.  Sometimes it's nearly impossible to reach a creative
frame of mind with a langauge that's obtuse to your thoughts.  [See Alan Kay's
and Lawrence Tesler's articles (you know who they are) in September's single-
topic issue of _Scientific_American_.]

With the limited choice of compilers available, I will agree that most of them
are barfworthy implementations; they won't survive their infancy.  It is
tempting to use something that produces beautiful code or gets the quickie
program done.  But then you will be stuck with an assembly-langauge
recipe-finder, or a Basic, smart-terminal program that runs 50-baud
serial-ports, or the chore of translating them.  All because the right
compiler implementation didn't exist at the time.

No one could say anything truer of the Macintosh.  Software houses have come
out with about 20 different C compilers for the IBM PC, and some of them
generate straight-jacket-tight code.  Why--competition and a growing market of
demanding PC developers.  (All this nagging is not in vain.)  However, let's
not limit ourselves to just C compilers.  Here at the University of Rochester
on a BSD 4.2 Vax exists a Modula-2 compiler (from DEC Western Research Labs)
that blows away the Unix C compiler.  (And we all know that Modula's syntax is
similar to Pascal's.)

While I am not trying to be as dogmatic as Niklaus Wirth, the point is that
you should choose a langauge that you like and is suitable for the job, and
then get the right implementation/s as they become available.


Ning____ 

..!{allegra|siesmo}!rochester!ur-univax!ning


about time someone--anyone--put the U of R on the netland map.
Re: Macprogramming. [message #76012 is a reply to message #75995] Wed, 29 May 2013 20:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ning is currently offline  ning
Messages: 7
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Message-ID: <5400003@ur-univax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Oct-84 05:26:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ur-univa.5400003
Posted: Mon Oct  8 05:26:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Oct-84 19:38:35 EDT
References: <131@qumix.UUCP>
Organization: University of Rochester: Computing Center
Lines: 58
Nf-ID: #R:qumix:-13100:ur-univax:5400003:000:3028
Nf-From: ur-univax!ning    Oct  8 05:26:00 1984



 > 	Does anyone have any insights on what's the best program language
 > 	software available or soon to be available for the Mac...
...
 > 	What decides which is the "best" programmming language for the Mac?
 > 	My thoughts- price, availability, no bugs, transportability, ease to
 > 	learn it, execution speed, development time, ease of understanding to
 > 	other programmers, program structure, I/O capability, and documentation
 > 	either built into the SW or in the manuals.


Some years ago, just as Pascal became popular, we read and heard much about
using the "correct" programming language.  Arguments abounded about using the
correct level of abstraction in a program versus arguments the speed and
efficieny of it's resulting code.  You couldn't beat the Fortran jock by
writing faster code, but you couldn't beat the his Pascal opponent by
implementing more elegant and sophisticated algorithms. Doesn't the same
argument hold true when choosing the correct langauge for the Macintosh?

Who won?  Well, absolutely no one starts a new project using Fortran; however,
not many use Pascal, either.  It seems that no one won.  Many programmers
prefer C; critical applications demand assembly langauge; and a good deal of
business gets done over APL and some coffee.  The point that I am trying to
make is that the right langauge should provide the right level abstraction for
the task, and more.  Sometimes it's nearly impossible to reach a creative
frame of mind with a langauge that's obtuse to your thoughts.  [See Alan Kay's
and Lawrence Tesler's articles (you know who they are) in September's single-
topic issue of _Scientific_American_.]

With the limited choice of compilers available, I will agree that most of them
are barfworthy implementations; they won't survive their infancy.  It is
tempting to use something that produces beautiful code or gets the quickie
program done.  But then you will be stuck with an assembly-langauge
recipe-finder, or a Basic, smart-terminal program that runs 50-baud
serial-ports, or the chore of translating them.  All because the right
compiler implementation didn't exist at the time.

No one could say anything truer of the Macintosh.  Software houses have come
out with about 20 different C compilers for the IBM PC, and some of them
generate straight-jacket-tight code.  Why--competition and a growing market of
demanding PC developers.  (All this nagging is not in vain.)  However, let's
not limit ourselves to just C compilers.  Here at the University of Rochester
on a BSD 4.2 Vax exists a Modula-2 compiler (from DEC Western Research Labs)
that blows away the Unix C compiler.  (And we all know that Modula's syntax is
similar to Pascal's.)

While I am not trying to be as dogmatic as Niklaus Wirth, the point is that
you should choose a langauge that you like and is suitable for the job, and
then get the right implementation/s as they become available.


Ning____ 

..!{allegra|siesmo}!rochester!ur-univax!ning


about time someone--anyone--put the U of R on the netland map.
Re: Macprogramming. [message #76013 is a reply to message #75995] Wed, 29 May 2013 20:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ning is currently offline  ning
Messages: 7
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Message-ID: <5400004@ur-univax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Oct-84 05:41:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ur-univa.5400004
Posted: Mon Oct  8 05:41:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Oct-84 19:39:20 EDT
References: <131@qumix.UUCP>
Organization: University of Rochester: Computing Center
Lines: 59
Nf-ID: #R:qumix:-13100:ur-univax:5400004:000:3110
Nf-From: ur-univax!ning    Oct  8 05:41:00 1984

 > 	Does anyone have any insights on what's the best program language
 > 	software available or soon to be available for the Mac...
...
 > 	What decides which is the "best" programmming language for the Mac?
 > 	My thoughts- price, availability, no bugs, transportability, ease to
 > 	learn it, execution speed, development time, ease of understanding to
 > 	other programmers, program structure, I/O capability, and documentation
 > 	either built into the SW or in the manuals.


Some years ago, just as Pascal became popular, we read and heard much about
using the "correct" programming language.  Arguments abounded about using the
correct level of abstraction in a program versus arguments the speed and
efficieny of it's resulting code.  You couldn't beat the Fortran jock by
writing faster code, but you couldn't beat the his Pascal opponent by
implementing more elegant and sophisticated algorithms. Doesn't the same
argument hold true when choosing the correct langauge for the Macintosh?

Who won?  Well, absolutely no one starts a new project using Fortran; however,
not many use Pascal, either.  It seems that no one won.  Many programmers
prefer C; critical applications demand assembly langauge; and a good deal of
business gets done over APL and some coffee.  The point that I am trying to
make is that the right langauge should provide the right level abstraction for
the task, and more.  Sometimes it's nearly impossible to reach a creative
frame of mind with a langauge that's obtuse to your thoughts.  [See Alan Kay's
and Lawrence Tesler's articles (you know who they are) in September's single-
topic issue of _Scientific_American_.]

With the limited choice of compilers available, I will agree that most of them
are barfworthy implementations; they won't survive their infancy.  It is
tempting to use something that produces beautiful code or gets the quickie
program done.  But then you will be stuck with an assembly-langauge
recipe-finder, or a Basic, smart-terminal program that runs 50-baud
serial-ports, or the chore of translating them.  All because the right
compiler implementation didn't exist at the time.

No one could say anything truer of the Macintosh.  Software houses have come
out with about 20 different C compilers for the IBM PC, and some of them
generate straight-jacket-tight code.  Why--competition and a growing market of
demanding PC developers.  (All this nagging is not in vain.)  However, let's
not limit ourselves to just C compilers.  Here at the University of Rochester
on a BSD 4.2 Vax exists a Modula-2 compiler (from DEC Western Research Labs)
that blows away the Unix C compiler.  (And we all know that Modula's syntax is
similar to Pascal's.)

While I am not trying to be as dogmatic as Niklaus Wirth, the point is that
you should choose a langauge that you like and is suitable for the job, and
then get the right implementation/s as they become available.

[Anyway, why am I hashing all this out.  I though people already knew this
stuff.]


Ning____ 

..!{allegra|siesmo}!rochester!ur-univax!ning


about time someone--anyone--put the U of R on the netland map.
Re: Macprogramming. [message #76027 is a reply to message #75995] Wed, 29 May 2013 20:01 Go to previous message
ech is currently offline  ech
Messages: 50
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Member
Message-ID: <569@spuxll.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Oct-84 21:34:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: spuxll.569
Posted: Wed Oct 10 21:34:12 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Oct-84 08:25:23 EDT
References: <131@qumix.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, South Plainfield NJ
Lines: 39

First, your question -- "what is the BEST programming language for the mac" --
is out of order: you program best in what you are most comfortable with.
There is a pretty clear consensus that MS Basic is about as poor as anything
you will encounter, but the tops is largely a matter of taste: no doubt
Jerry Pournelle will use Modula II when he eventually gives in...

Personally, I have MacFORTH level 2 ($250 list) which has a built-in
assembler that true FORTH hackers will want to have; even level 1 has a few
defining words that allow many of the toolbox traps to be reached, in addition
to the many traps that they support directly.  More precisely, that is version
1.1.  Window, menu, sound, and graphics are pretty well supported, and the
all-but-compiled object is pretty fast.  A good, effective medium for probing
the toolbox calls, and you can do some learning and fun stuff while you are
waiting for a "good" modula II or native mode C or whatever.

In answer to another of your questions, the latest Club Mac News has an ad
for MacASM, a "co-resident Editor/MacroAssembler for the Macintosh."
Introductory price $100 from Mainstream, 28611B Canwood St., Agoura Hills CA
91301. Tel (818) 991-6540.  I have no idea how well the fact corresponds to
the copy.

More generally, there is simply no way to make effective use of the Mac
AS A PROGRAMMER without the Inside Macintosh documentation.  In for a penny,
in for a pound: for $150 you get Inside Macintosh, or you can wait for the
hardcover book (probably next Spring) for somewhat less money.  For another
$100 you get the LISA WorkShop (WS) Supplement, which is the only way to
get the updates to the above AND they will throw in a copy of the hardcover
when published.  They have had some REAL problems getting this stuff out
the door, but there is NOWHERE else to get the data.

The WS supplement, by the way, is not entirely useless: you also get 8
disks or so, 3 of which are readable by the Mac.  I have no Lisa, but the
three disks I can read have lots of useful tools on them.

Let's see, so far I have told you how to spend $600 while you wait for the
right language processor.  Sounds like enough for now.  But if you are 
serious, get Inside Macintosh FIRST.

=Ned=
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: A proposal for Mac upgrades
Next Topic: Bill Atkinson talk
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 06:00:34 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.09248 seconds