Graphical IDE for Oberon-2

[Nameless]

I'm interested in investigating the Oberon-2's potentiality
as a class A programming tool. I prefer to do this using a
graphical IDE.

Pow! http://www.fim.uni-linz.ac.at/pow/Pow.htm is a software
development environment for Microsoft Windows application
generation (using Oberon-2). I'm looking for information/
recommendations before I jump in and install Pow! on my
Windows XP system. Would any users of Pow! care to share
their experiences?

(After reading some of the other posts in this newsgroup, I
should mention that any recommendations that I stick to the
mainstream programming languages would be a total waste of
time and effort. To be honest, I'm tired of the commercial
hype surrounding such languages/systems and the subsequent
lost time getting familiar with them, only to experience
that they fall short when *really* put to the test. BTW,
the content contained within these parentheses isn't up for
discussion either--at least by me!)

[Gérard Meunier]

Post by Nameless
I'm interested in investigating the Oberon-2's potentiality
as a class A programming tool. I prefer to do this using a
graphical IDE.

Hello,

I used Pow a little far ago and found it interesting but too minimalist.
Since then I've used BlackBox, whose language, Component Pascal, is very
similar to Oberon 2. This IDE is very robust and its library is rich. I
suggest you try it.

Gérard

[Nameless]

Post by Gérard Meunier

Post by Nameless
I'm interested in investigating the Oberon-2's potentiality
as a class A programming tool. I prefer to do this using a
graphical IDE.

I used Pow a little far ago and found it interesting but too
minimalist.

Hmm, do you care to expand on "minimalist," Gérard?

Post by Gérard Meunier
Since then I've used BlackBox, whose language, Component Pascal, is very
similar to Oberon 2. This IDE is very robust and its library is rich. I
suggest you try it.

Thanks for the tip, I just might do that anyway. In the
meantime, maybe you can tell me (in short terms) how
Component Pascal differs from Oberon-2? After all, the use
of "Pascal" in the name does suggest that development is
moving backwards instead of forward. ;)

[Chris Burrows]

Post by Nameless
Thanks for the tip, I just might do that anyway. In the
meantime, maybe you can tell me (in short terms) how
Component Pascal differs from Oberon-2? After all, the use
of "Pascal" in the name does suggest that development is
moving backwards instead of forward. ;)

I second Gerard's recommendations. For an excellent overview, see What's New
in Component Pascal:

http://www.oberon.ch/pdf/CP-New.pdf

Quote from the introduction: "Except for some minor points, Component Pascal
is a superset of Oberon-2"

I can vouch for the 'industrial-strength' quality of Component Pascal. I use
it extensively for my company's on-line ordering system, customer data,
registration-issuing system, email list etc. etc.

--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/gpcp

[Nameless]

Post by Chris Burrows

Post by Nameless
Thanks for the tip, I just might do that anyway. In the
meantime, maybe you can tell me (in short terms) how
Component Pascal differs from Oberon-2? After all, the use
of "Pascal" in the name does suggest that development is
moving backwards instead of forward. ;)

I second Gerard's recommendations. For an excellent overview, see What's
http://www.oberon.ch/pdf/CP-New.pdf
Quote from the introduction: "Except for some minor points, Component
Pascal is a superset of Oberon-2"

Thanks, that document indeed provides answers to my
questions. It is good to see that Oberon microsystems, Inc.
values quality documentation; that alone is enough to make
me want to take a closer look at BlackBox. Note, however,
that the last sentence under the heading "Procedure types"
on page 9 appears to erroneously refer to "super calls".
Also, listing "Contents" in the Table of Contents rather
degrades the quality aspect of this document. :(

In his book "Developing Programs with Blackbox Oberon,"
Brett S. Hallett is of the opinion that the BlackBox
documentation is of poor standard. Now this contradicts
what I said in the prior paragraph regarding my first
impressions. So what's your opinion on the quality of the
documentation, both hardcopy and the "help" system?

Post by Chris Burrows
I can vouch for the 'industrial-strength' quality of Component Pascal. I
use it extensively for my company's on-line ordering system, customer
data, registration-issuing system, email list
etc. etc.

Noted--your opinion is appreciated.

BTW, I picked up your TextPad syntax file for Component
Pascal--thanks. Maybe you also have a Clip file handy that
you wouldn't mind sharing? ;)

[Chris Burrows]

Post by Nameless
In his book "Developing Programs with Blackbox Oberon,"
Brett S. Hallett is of the opinion that the BlackBox
documentation is of poor standard. Now this contradicts
what I said in the prior paragraph regarding my first
impressions. So what's your opinion on the quality of the
documentation, both hardcopy and the "help" system?

The documentation is very thorough but I can see how some would have
difficulties understanding it. It is not for programming newbies. Stan
Warford's book, 'Computing Fundamentals - The Theory and Practice of
Software Design with BlackBox Component Builder' is more suitable for those
with little or no programming experience.

My only complaint with Oberon Microsystem's documentation has been the
searching capabilities of the Help system.

Post by Nameless
BTW, I picked up your TextPad syntax file for Component
Pascal--thanks. Maybe you also have a Clip file handy that
you wouldn't mind sharing? ;)

No I don't have one, sorry.

--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/gpcp

[Gérard Meunier]

Post by Nameless

Post by Gérard Meunier

Post by Nameless
I'm interested in investigating the Oberon-2's potentiality
as a class A programming tool. I prefer to do this using a
graphical IDE.

I used Pow a little far ago and found it interesting but too
minimalist.

Hmm, do you care to expand on "minimalist," Gérard?

The main library of Pow, Opal, contains 14 not very big modules.
BlackBox gives, by default, nearly 300 modules. And there is a BB users'
page where you can find many more utilities.

Very interactive softwares can be easily written in BB. I know it since
I did it. It's surely not the case with Pow.

Cheers.

Gérard

[Nameless]

Post by Nameless

Post by Gérard Meunier

Post by Nameless
I'm interested in investigating the Oberon-2's potentiality
as a class A programming tool. I prefer to do this using a
graphical IDE.

I used Pow a little far ago and found it interesting but too
minimalist.

Hmm, do you care to expand on "minimalist," Gérard?

The main library of Pow, Opal, contains 14 not very big modules. BlackBox
gives, by default, nearly 300 modules. And there is a BB users' page where
you can find many more utilities.

Yes, the Opal library does seem quite lean. :(

Very interactive softwares can be easily written in BB. I know it since I
did it. It's surely not the case with Pow.

That's a very strong reason to follow your advice, Gérard.
Many thanks, I'll go ahead and install BB this weekend.

Ok, all you BB guys, you can now welcome me to the club! :)

[j***@yahoo.com]

I've used Pow, BlackBox, System 3 and V4. There are some things I like
better about each enviornment. Pow!'s strength is that it's easy to
build
linked, stand alone apps under Windows with it. (My experience) is
that if you want to build a standalone app with BlackBox (or Sys 3)
you've got some more "hoops" to jump through. All of these
enviornments
are free to download, so you've got nothing to lose but time with
regard to deciding what best fits your needs.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Nameless]

Post by j***@yahoo.com
I've used Pow, BlackBox, System 3 and V4. There are some
things I like better about each enviornment. Pow!'s strength
is that it's easy to build linked, standalone apps under
Windows with it. (My experience) is that if you want to build
a standalone app with BlackBox (or Sys 3) > you've got some
more "hoops" to jump through. All of these enviornments are
free to download, so you've got nothing to lose but time with
regard to deciding what best fits your needs.

Thanks for your input, John, much appreciated. I have
downloaded Pow, BlackBox and WinOberon, and installed
the latter two. BlackBox has been moderately checked out,
but it will take a lot of getting used to, what with it
being a far cry from project-oriented IDEs such as Visual
C/C++. This may well prove to be too big a hindrance to
efficient application development that I'll look elsewhere.
OTOH, I might find BlackBox sufficiently interesting to
create an alternative, project-oriented IDE myself. Would
anyone care to get involved in such a project (if only to
keep me interested in BlackBox)? ;)

[Stefano Ferrari]

Sorry I don't understand what do you mean when you say
<I might find BlackBox sufficiently interesting to
create an alternative, project-oriented IDE myself>
If BlackBox is interesting why create an alternative?

By the way I'm creating a project oriented IDE
for Oberon & Windows OS.
It's in a very early stage cause:
a) I want to do it in Oberon
Thus I'm creating a full set of control
that act like wrappers for Windows controls like
button, listbox, combobox, etc... All object oriented
ans event driven (very much like VB or Delphi)
A lot of work done but so many to do also!
b) Compiler developed, need to be inegrated into the IDE (make, build
facilities)
c) Need a linker (to be done)

Regards

Post by Nameless

Post by j***@yahoo.com
I've used Pow, BlackBox, System 3 and V4. There are some
things I like better about each enviornment. Pow!'s strength
is that it's easy to build linked, standalone apps under
Windows with it. (My experience) is that if you want to build
a standalone app with BlackBox (or Sys 3) > you've got some
more "hoops" to jump through. All of these enviornments are
free to download, so you've got nothing to lose but time with
regard to deciding what best fits your needs.

Thanks for your input, John, much appreciated. I have
downloaded Pow, BlackBox and WinOberon, and installed
the latter two. BlackBox has been moderately checked out,
but it will take a lot of getting used to, what with it
being a far cry from project-oriented IDEs such as Visual
C/C++. This may well prove to be too big a hindrance to
efficient application development that I'll look elsewhere.
OTOH, I might find BlackBox sufficiently interesting to
create an alternative, project-oriented IDE myself. Would
anyone care to get involved in such a project (if only to
keep me interested in BlackBox)? ;)
--
Mail sent to this email address is deleted unread
on the server. Please send replies to the newsgroup.

[Nameless]

Post by Stefano Ferrari
Sorry I don't understand what do you mean when you say
<I might find BlackBox sufficiently interesting to
create an alternative, project-oriented IDE myself>
If BlackBox is interesting why create an alternative?

Well, the component building aspects of BlackBox are very
interesting. But the environment can hardly be said to be
project-oriented, so much work needed here.

Post by Stefano Ferrari
By the way I'm creating a project oriented IDE
for Oberon & Windows OS.
a) I want to do it in Oberon
Thus I'm creating a full set of control
that act like wrappers for Windows controls like
button, listbox, combobox, etc... All object oriented
ans event driven (very much like VB or Delphi)
A lot of work done but so many to do also!
b) Compiler developed, need to be inegrated into the IDE
(make, build facilities)
c) Need a linker (to be done)

Right, sounds like the sort of IDE I had in mind. Just be
sure to keep the component building aspects intact. ;)

[Chris Burrows]

Post by Nameless
BlackBox has been moderately checked out,
but it will take a lot of getting used to, what with it
being a far cry from project-oriented IDEs such as Visual
C/C++. This may well prove to be too big a hindrance to
efficient application development that I'll look elsewhere.
OTOH, I might find BlackBox sufficiently interesting to
create an alternative, project-oriented IDE myself. Would
anyone care to get involved in such a project (if only to
keep me interested in BlackBox)? ;)

If you want to get the most out of your BlackBox experience I'd recommend
putting the effort into finding out how it works rather than trying to bend
it to your existing habits. It *is* very different from 'conventional' IDEs.
so it does time some time to get your head around it. For example, there is
no need to have to manually maintain a 'project' in BlackBox as you *need*
to do in other IDEs - the system will create one for you. Try this:

1. Open the source file of the main program of an application that imports
several modules.

2. Highlight the import list

3. Select Info > Create Tool from the main menu

4. Voila!

Warning: once you have learnt what you can do with BlackBox you may became
disatisfied with the more 'conventional' IDEs. This happened to me as a
long-time user of Borland Developer Studio (i.e. Delphi) and, more recently,
Microsoft Visual Studio.

One illustration of this was a recent real experience. I had developed a
Component Pascal program and suspected a performance bottleneck somewhere.
Within a minutes of using the BlackBox profiler (on the Dev menu) I had
identified and fixed the problem. Compared with other profiling tools I've
used in the past (some of which require you to modify source files!) the
BlackBox profiler was a joy to use.

I generally use BlackBox for inhouse work and prototyping algorithms. The
major reason why BlackBox is not my primary development tool for commercial
products is the difficulty of using it to produce standalone Windows apps
with non-trivial GUIs. Fortunately, I can still use Component Pascal, using
the Gardens Point implementation within the Microsoft .NET framework, for
those tasks.

--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/gpcp

[Nameless]

"Chris Burrows" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:43a89e49$***@duster.adelaide.on.net...
[...]

Post by Chris Burrows
If you want to get the most out of your BlackBox experience
I'd recommend putting the effort into finding out how it works
rather than trying to bend it to your existing habits. It *is*
very different from 'conventional' IDEs. so it does time some
time to get your head around it.

[...]

Yes, I do need to spend more time familiarizing myself with
BlackBox, Chris, there is so much to learn -- and presumably
appreciate. ;)