From: hlam@bnr.ca (Hayward Lam)
Subject: Re: Need For Automated Programming? (Re: I Take It Back)
Keywords: Automated Programming
Reply-To: hlam@bnr.ca (Hayward Lam)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:49:53 GMT


In article <1992Nov18.021200.28714@leland.Stanford.EDU>, gcolello@biosphere.Stanford.EDU (Greg Colello) writes:
|> Well it's sure nice to hear that the developer class is so good, but it  
|> reveals a problem too. It's hard to appreciate the programming aspects of  
|> the Next platform without taking a $1000 developer class (and that's just  
|> the beginning).
|> 
|> I believe this is due to the underlying complexity of object-oriented  
|> window programming (not a Next specific problem). This weakness has  
|> existed since windowing systems first appeared: a mind-boggling profusion  
|> of utilities with VeryYyYyYy_long-STRangeNAMES and countless inscrutable  
|> options emanating from several different loosely linked subsystems tied  
|> together mysteriously with an unfamiliar version of C, containing  
|> messaging and object extensions. And it's still true on the Next (albeit  
|> MUCH better).
|> 
|> There's no way that "decent folk" can in all good conscience claim the  
|> Next is an easy environment to program. It IS easy to set up the  
|> programming interface. After that it's hard work. If you know how to do it  
|> (after 1-2 years solid experience), a hell of a lot of power is at your  
|> fingertips. But how many people are we still squeezing out with that 1-2  
|> year learning curve? This is supposed to be the intuitive GUI world of the  
|> Next. Is "intuitive GUI" only for application users?
|> 
|> The only answer to this problem that I can see is a complete automated  
|> programming system or intimately linked set of tools. Project Builder and  
|> Interface Builder point the way, but they drop you off a cliff after  
|> you've built your interface. And the palette is just a tease. It's time  
|> for us Next third party developers to come up with the world's first  
|> COMPLETE automated programming system. Such a tool would generate some  
|> even more serious advocacy for the Next, but we can't expect Next to do  
|> it.
|> 
|> The first step towards this goal is a solid design spec. How about a  
|> comp.sys.next.programming thread for that purpose? I'm willing to fire the  
|> first shot if there is any interest. Any comments?
|> 
|> PS. - PLEASE!!! Don't write back and tell me that a complete automated  
|> programming system has already been done or that it's not possible. If you  
|> think either, you're probably a REAL programmer and won't benefit from  
|> this discussion. On the other hand making a list of Next packages that  
|> have some of the automated programming functionality and listing that  
|> functionality would be useful.
|> 
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------
|> Greg Colello
|> Carnegie Institution, Department of Plant Biology
|> Stanford University
|> gcolello@biosphere.stanford.edu

A subsidary of my company is called ObjecTime. Their product is also called ObjecTime. The program allows you to focus on the design aspect and lets you test the design before coding (like IB, but this is down to implementation level). After the design is verified, it automatically generates C++ code. If the design is more at the conceptual level, you have to write more C++ code. But if your design is down to the very detail, there is basically no code needs to be written. 
If ObjecTime can produce Objective C code and can be incorporated in IB, it would be a great design tool!! 


Regards,
Hayward
Email: hlam@bnr.ca
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy