|
|
|
|
| Welcome, Guest | Home | Search | Login | Register | |
| Author | Question for you Mac C++ wizards (Read 48526 times) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bolkonskij
Administrator 1024 MB  Posts: 2023 
|
Reply #15 on: April 11, 2024, 15:58
Good point. May I ask what makes you chose the Pro versions over the one for regular mortals? Any features specific to them? I have to admit, I never tried them and found Metrowerks product marketing always to be confusing. Usually sticking with CW6 (because -> 68k target) on PPC and Think C 6 on my IIci. Any specific advantages / disadvantages? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ClassicHasClass
|
32 MB  Posts: 39
Reply #16 on: April 11, 2024, 21:34
|
Mostly because they were closest to the software I initially needed to build (I've got a slightly different version of CW Pro on my 2300c because it was used to build Cyberdog components). Otherwise, I don't claim to be an expert on the differences.
|
ShinobiKenobi
|
256 MB Posts: 362 System 7 fan
Reply #17 on: April 11, 2024, 21:58
|
That's really awesome lauland, thanks for sharing that with us! 
|
Jatoba
|
256 MB Posts: 270 System 9 Newcomer!
Reply #18 on: April 12, 2024, 14:39
|
Quote from: lauland (In hindsight, trying downgrading to 10.2 or 10.3 probably would've been a good idea, I believe their version of Classic WOULD display) Quote from: ClassicHasClass 10.3 introduced double-buffered windows in Classic. 10.2 is probably the most compatible implementation of Classic and 10.2 also still supports classic EtherTalk Phase 2. IMHO it's the best version of OS X if you're primarily running non-Carbon apps. I can second that: 10.3 most definitely would be as awful as 10.4 for that case, but it is worth a try under 10.2. I find 10.2 by far the best version of OS X. Or maybe I should say I find it the best at least for the things I care about, among them the "Classic" support/behavior. (However, at the end of the day, I would never boot OS X in a machine that can one way or another boot into the real Mac OS, 9.2.2 and earlier. Not even 10.2.) By the way, I see most experienced Mac devs always mentioning CodeWarrior, MPW and THINK/Symantec C/C++ (and THINK Pascal) both for their current OR past projects, also because they are such popular, well-known and widely-used tools or environments, but may I persuade most of you to also give Fantasm 6 a go? Maybe poke around it and see what you think or what it feels like? Its main thing is being great for direct PPC and 68k assembly programming, including macros (that you can customize, called LXT) to translate 68k to PPC, however it supports C and C++ very well out-of-the-box, as well, which I'm sure you guys would appreciate. The reason I recommend it to you guys in particular is because I know more veteran eyes will experience it in ways very different from what not-as-experienced Mac devs like myself would, which would be very insightful, and enriching to all of us from all sides, also because Fantasm 6 is supposedly incredibly robust, and modular (i.e. you can use MrC and MrCpp with it, for example). But that's just a suggestion. For the curious, here's a screenshot-filled tour of Fantasm 6.
|
cballero
|
1024 MB Posts: 1176 System 7, today and forever
Reply #19 on: April 12, 2024, 15:23
|
That software looks really neat!Have you been playing around with it? If so, what's been your experience with it compared to aany others you've tried?  I'd be more comfortable trying out an obect-oriented language like FutureBASIC (well, that's I kept telling myself when I saw their MacUSer magazine ad eons ago) 
|
lauland
|
512 MB Posts: 674 Symtes 7 Mewconer!
Reply #20 on: April 12, 2024, 18:02
|
OMG! You just totally blew my mind. I never knew Fantasm could be used for more than just assembly!!! (I never do pure assembly projects, just inline in my C code, so I completely ignored it). Sounds like it uses the MPW compiler tools, but (extremely likely) a WAY better editor experience than using MPW itself! (Which is very powerful, but VERY weird). I will absolutely have to give it a try! Very good to know about 10.2...I'd heard someone complaining a LOT over on another site about 10.4 and classic app screen buffering and just assumed that was the version where Apple added it.
|
lauland
|
512 MB Posts: 674 Symtes 7 Mewconer!
Reply #21 on: April 14, 2024, 23:57
|
CodeWarrior changed their version numbers around 12 (or 13?), so CodeWarrior 1 PRO actually came out after CodeWarrior 11 (no pro). The versions previous to PRO came in gold/bronze/etc depending on which platforms they supported. Gold included everything, but I think bronze was m68k only. ----- If you're building your own code from scratch, with nobody else's libraries, you can use whichever compiler you like... ...BUT if you're building someone else's sources you absolutely should use the same exact compiler version they did. First, you most likely won't be able to use any included project files they supplied, but also they may depend on support that came with that particular compiler. Going from one brand of compiler to another (like Symantec vs CodeWarrior), you'll run into differences with the standard C libraries, header names, etc. Different compiler versions came with different versions of the standard Apple system headers/libs (called Universal Headers after PPC). So using a very old compiler you won't be able to use MacOS 8+ features...and using new ones you won't be able to support System 7 (let alone 6). So, if you're following along in a book, using the same version they are is a very good idea!
|
ShinobiKenobi
|
256 MB Posts: 362 System 7 fan
Reply #22 on: April 15, 2024, 05:37
|
@lauland Thanks, that's good advice. I eventually installed CW 5 Gold Thanks also to Jatoba and cballero and everyone else for the good information.
|
lauland
|
512 MB Posts: 674 Symtes 7 Mewconer!
Reply #23 on: April 18, 2024, 16:46
|
That's my favorite version I use on actual 68k machines and slower ppc's like the 6100 and 5300!
|
|
Pages: 1 [2]
|
| |||||||||
|
© 2021 System7Today.com. |
