net@uwmacc.UUCP (jeff kesselman) (06/30/86)
I am doing my thesis project on my Amiga, and kind of dread the idea of
doing a project this large in C. I was waiting for the Turbo Pascal Borland
promised last year by the first quarter of this year. Well, second quarter
has come and gone and no Turbo, methinks it begins to look like vaporware,
and in any case, I can't wait more than another month or two.
Therefor, I would like peoples reactions to AmigaPascal. (At ##@#!! $140
I want to make damn sure it does what I need before I buy).
My thesis project is an Amiga based solid modeling animation system, so
among my primary considerations are:
1) Does it work, or is it broke?
2) Does it compile down to reasonably effecient native machine code?
3) Does it provide reasonably easy access to the Rom Kernal routines,
particularly the graphics and window routines (and, come to think of it,
does it provide decent access to intuition, as that makes handling the
windows so much easier.)
4) Does it provide a reasonable environment for development of code?
(The old Turbo environment was pretty slick! And 4. Turbo is supposed to
be better, at least thats what they claim.)
5) What other "Turbo type" enhancements does it support or is it lacking.
(ex: direct memory adressing, strings, etc...)
6) Also, it may be a while before I can afford a second drive, does it
work ok with a single drive system, or does it, like C, require a
million disk swaps to compile something?
I'm also interested in hearing about peoples experiences in relation to the
above with Modula II compilers.
Thanx much, please direct responses to me and I'll summarize.
Jeff Kesselman
ihnp4!uwvax!maccunix!netjimm@amiga.UUCP (James D. Mackraz) (07/01/86)
In article <44@uwmacc.UUCP> net@uwmacc.UUCP (jeff kesselman) writes: >Therefor, I would like peoples reactions to AmigaPascal. (At ##@#!! $140 > I want to make damn sure it does what I need before I buy). My girlfriend used it for a class. We had 1.0 version, but later used 1.1 (perhaps a pre-release). On some points, I will clarify that I am most familiar with 1.0. > >My thesis project is an Amiga based solid modeling animation system, so >among my primary considerations are: >1) Does it work, or is it broke? Seemed to work as advertised, with the exception of file I/O, reportedly fixed in 1.1. >2) Does it compile down to reasonably effecient native machine code? Lot's of overhead in your executable, I recall 20+K. >3) Does it provide reasonably easy access to the Rom Kernal routines, > particularly the graphics and window routines (and, come to think of it, > does it provide decent access to intuition, as that makes handling the > windows so much easier.) No. None whatsoever. Writeln(). >4) Does it provide a reasonable environment for development of code? Not in and of itself. Recall that on a suitably stacked amiga, you can keep your editor running while you compile, but there are not hooks between editor and compiler. >5) What other "Turbo type" enhancements does it support or is it lacking. > (ex: direct memory adressing, strings, etc...) No tricks at all. ISO standard. 1.0 (and I think 1.1) didn't have a String type, nor padding of string literals. Good old vanilla Pascal, designed as a teaching language by people who don't want any young competition :-). > >6) Also, it may be a while before I can afford a second drive, does it > work ok with a single drive system, or does it, like C, require a > million disk swaps to compile something? You could write small programs on a single disk. Sorry, no estimates. Bear in mind that one thing that makes single-drive C sorry is that you want access to those system include files. Well, there is no system access, so you don't need any include files. > >I'm also interested in hearing about peoples experiences in relation to the >above with Modula II compilers. There is active discussion on Bix. People seem generally pleased with TDI's implementation. I know that they provide nice system access by design. I hope they don't have any problems in their early release. > >Thanx much, please direct responses to me and I'll summarize. Oops. >Jeff Kesselman >ihnp4!uwvax!maccunix!net jimm (speaking as amiga user, not (informed) employee)
carolyn@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Carolyn Scheppner) (07/01/86)
In article <1368@amiga.amiga.UUCP> jimm@homer.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes: >In article <44@uwmacc.UUCP> net@uwmacc.UUCP (jeff kesselman) writes: >>Therefor, I would like peoples reactions to AmigaPascal. (At ##@#!! $140 >> I want to make damn sure it does what I need before I buy). > >>My thesis project is an Amiga based solid modeling animation system... >> ... >>Does it provide reasonably easy access to the Rom Kernal routines, >>particularly the graphics and window routines (and, come to think of it, >>does it provide decent access to intuition, as that makes handling the >>windows so much easier.) In our next release of Pascal, you can declare EXTERNAL functions (such as Rom Kernal functions) and link with Amiga.lib (provided). -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Carolyn Scheppner -- CBM >>Amiga Technical Support<< UUCP ...{allegra,caip,ihnp4,seismo}!cbmvax!carolyn PHONE 215-431-9180 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=