finkel@TAURUS.BITNET (12/19/89)
As I promised, here is a summary of the replies I received about the usability of Metacomco Pascal 2.0 vs. Modula II , for usage as a language for porting Turbo Pascal programs. From the replies I received, it seems that Metacomco should be avoided in any cost... My boss decided to write a Turbo Pascal -> Modula II translator to ease the developers who want to port their Turbo Pascal programs to the Amiga. Yesterday, just before I wanted to post this letter, I was at work when we received a FAX about a new Pascal compiler!! It's called Pascal plus, and it's available for AmigaDOS/Unix/MS-DOS. I don't know t`he company's name, but it was written in Denmark. I have almost no details about it since I had to leave work and had no time to read the FAX myself. I'll write more about it in a few days when I'lbe at work again, and I'll have another chance to look at it. Since our usenet connections are STILL shaky, any specific questions should be mailed directly to me (finkel@taurus.BITNET), and I'll try to answer what I can. Udi Summaries of replies I received are following: ( There are one or two replies I lost - sorry about that! ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Martens <martens@cis.ohio-state.edu> This is just a gut feeling, but since Metacomco (v 1.x, at least) stuck pretty close to the Pascal standard, and since Borland wouldn't know a standard if their grandmothers tripped over one, I would guess that it'd be just as easy to port to Modula 2 as to a Pascal environment. Plus, with Modula 2 you get the only modern programming language environment available on the Amiga (modules, strong type checking, run time checks, etc.) and probably better support -- at least among the Internet community if not from the company itself. -- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jlavi@ujocs.joensuu.fi (Jarkko Lavinen) >I am interested in hearing information from anyone who owns or >used MetaComco Pascal 2.0 . I'm computing student. Here in Joensuu they teach 2-3 first years with Pascal, so I do my exercises with it. For such purpose it serves quite well, because MCC follows standard Pascal definition, and the standard is just what we are taught. (By some reason, i don't know why, they loathe TP.) But MCC is unreliable and slow. It creates unbelievably big binaries. The unreliability could be left well in parenthesis, earlier versions were damn buggy, but I still can crash it eg. with EXP(100) (guru!). If You're about to choose between modula2 and MCC, choose modula2. MCC is a toy. jlavi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) [.. edited by me - udi ] I realize that today's Modula-II compilers are in pretty good shape, but I didn't pursue, so I don't have first hand knowledge. All I know is that I believe it would be a mistake to buy MCC Pascal until some miracle occurs and they learn how to make even a simple Pascal compiler work correctly :^) One good thing about MCC Pascal - it compiles pretty fast. Good Luck, Kent -----------------------------------------------------------------