cmt@tybalt.caltech.edu (Rich Seigel c/o Etoyoc) (11/06/86)
Sender:
[ EAT ME RAW!! line eater! ]
[ I'm posting this for a friend. He can read the net, but not ]
[ post directly. Any response should be routed to him. Enjoy! ]
This is all very interesting.... a response has appeared on the board
before my post has even appeared there! But anyway....
This is in response to a post by iav1917@ritcv.UUCP (alan vymetalik)...
Turbo Pascal for the Macintosh has been promised for MONTHS, and now, they're
just getting around to advertising it...In those months, my view of Borland
was been shaken a bit.
My favorite Pascal compiler is Lightspeed Pascal for the Macintosh. It offers
high compilation speed (I've measured about 7000 lines per minute for my
code), link times of under a second, an incredible interactive source-level
debugging environment (while still allowing your application to run at full
compiled speed!), and the extensions that no Pascal should be without (which
help it be compatible with Lisa Pascal). In addition the code is as good or
better than anything around.
Lightspeed Pascal also offers UNITs and separate compilation, Toolbox
access, etc, etc.....
>large memory model
Can you explain that? Is that just a compatibility thing for Turbo for the
PC? Otherwise, a "Large Memory Model" makes no sense on a nonsegmented
machine like the Macintosh (sorry, slight slam at the PC there.. 8-) ).
Unless you're talking about long-worded addressing, which (in my opinion),
ALL compilers should do...
I've not heard about Turbo 4.0 for the PC....The public clusters here have
Turbo 3.0.....
I have no connection with the sellers of Lightspeed Pascal other than as a
satisfied user.
--Rich
(Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa) (rs4u@andrew.cmu.edu)
[ The opinions contained within are not mine, but his. If ]
[ they are not yours, then lucky you. ;-) Laters, folks... ]iav1917@ritcv.UUCP (alan i. vymetalik) (11/07/86)
[Now, where did that line eater get to?] > This is all very interesting.... a response has appeared on the board >before my post has even appeared there! But anyway.... This happens sometimes due to the nature of the net. 'Most paths are equal. Some are more equal than others.' Depending on the route a posting has taken, I have had answers appear a day before the question arrives at my site. VERY disturbing. Sorta like time travel... >Turbo Pascal for the Macintosh has been promised for MONTHS, and now, they're >just getting around to advertising it...In those months, my view of Borland >was been shaken a bit. Don't feel bad. Turbo C and Turbo Modula-2 are two packages Borland has hinted and nudged about. They 'may' be the products that will be announced at COMDEX: "Release of a previously committed project." My feelings towards Borland has always fluttered around uneasy. If they manage to produce an optimizing Pascal compiler that can link into libraries and allow me access to the full address space of the machine, I'll continue to use Turbo. However, a lot of my work is being converted to C. So, I think C is where I'll stay. :-( >My favorite Pascal compiler is Lightspeed Pascal for the Macintosh. It offers >high compilation speed (I've measured about 7000 lines per minute for my >code)... While I confess I do not have much time anymore to play with a Macintosh (I started programming on them when they first came out... don't have enough free time anymore), I still think the machine is an incredible piece of hardware (especially the Plus). Anyway, I don't care what machine it is...7000 lpm is FAST. >>large memory model > >Can you explain that? Is that just a compatibility thing for Turbo for the >PC? Otherwise, a "Large Memory Model" makes no sense on a nonsegmented >machine like the Macintosh (sorry, slight slam at the PC there.. 8-) ). >Unless you're talking about long-worded addressing, which (in my opinion), >ALL compilers should do... Ah, here's where the MS-DOS world has brain damaged me!... After doing so much programming and re-inventing the wheel working with the damned Intel processor (8088, 80286) family, I completely forgot that there are other REAL machines out there. Yes, I hang my head in submission...these processors can be downright confusing sometimes. What I meant to ask was the compiler's capability of accessing the entire address space available to the processor. A full 32-bit microprocessor, such as the 80386, has an INCREDIBLE amount a memory addresses at its beck and call. Any compiler that cannot talk to each byte of memory is a waste. >I've not heard about Turbo 4.0 for the PC....The public clusters here have >Turbo 3.0..... Has anyone? Any Co-ops out there who have worked for Borland want to spill the beans? Just kidding, folks! I commend the silence on the insiders who exist on the net..but, the waiting is ridiculous. > --Rich Thanks, Rich. Enjoy, Alan ================================================= alan i. vymetalik uucp: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!iav1917 =================================================