jay@ut-emx.UUCP (Jay Boisseau) (02/12/89)
A while ago I posted an article about Turbo Pascal, asking if anyone knew anything about 2.0. Someone responded via e-mail and told me that his friend, an ex-Borland employee with many friends (i.e. contacts) there, told him that Borland was giving up on their Mac line. Since then, I have been calling Borland to find out if this is true. So far, everyone I've talked to is doing a "Sgt. Schultz"--they know nothing about dropping the Mac line, but they also know nothing about version 2.0 (which is well overdue). Since I've seen references to Turbo Pascal periodically on Net, I thought I'd share this with everyone. I am planning to switch to LSP, and I would recommend that new buyers take that route instead of Turbo, unless you know something that nobody I talked to at Borland knows... Anyone wanna buy Turbo Pascal for the Mac version 1.1? Jay (jay@astro.as.utexas.edu)
B.BSK@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU (Brian Keller) (11/17/89)
In article <5182@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) writes: > I would go further and suggest that any Borland product for the Mac is > unlikely to be worthwhile. Certainly Turbo Pascal is not What's wrong with Turbo Pascal? I use it for all kinds of programming from simulations to full Mac style interfaces. Am I missing something? I love the fast compile time and it's pretty good at recovering from fairly serious crashes through macsbug. So far it's been compatible with every system update I've installed. What's the problem? Brian Keller -------
jg108@umd5.umd.edu (Martin Walser) (11/17/89)
>> I would go further and suggest that any Borland product for the Mac is >> unlikely to be worthwhile. Certainly Turbo Pascal is not. >What's wrong with Turbo Pascal? I use it for all kinds of programming from >simulations to full Mac style interfaces. Am I missing something? I love >the fast compile time and it's pretty good at recovering from fairly serious >crashes through macsbug. So far it's been compatible with every system >update I've installed. What's the problem? >Brian Keller IMHO, I have to agree with the former statement. Program itself is not terrible BUT, it IS user hostile as far as Mac interface is concerned. It looks like Borland merely ported it straight from the PC without taking advantage of what can be accomplished with the Mac interface. I'm not crazy about it. A friend of mine suggested buying Lightspeed Pascal which he says is much more user- friendly and easier to use even. I don't know, but I trust his judgement. He's really serious about his MacComputing and I trust his judgement highly. (oh, btw, NEITHER of us is affiliated with anything useful so this isn't a PR push. 8^) ). I'm still trying to figure out how to use UnitMover and Rmaker right. (I just recently purchased Turbo 1.1) Oooh and that MANUAL... BLECH! Martin (jg108@umd5.umd.edu) ...just one man's humble opinion.
c8s-an@franny.Berkeley.EDU (Alex Lau) (11/17/89)
In article <12542856940.20.B.BSK@Macbeth.Stanford.EDU> B.BSK@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU (Brian Keller) writes: >In article <5182@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) >writes: >> I would go further and suggest that any Borland product for the Mac is >> unlikely to be worthwhile. Certainly Turbo Pascal is not >What's wrong with Turbo Pascal? I use it for all kinds of programming from >simulations to full Mac style interfaces. Am I missing something? I love >the fast compile time and it's pretty good at recovering from fairly serious >crashes through macsbug. So far it's been compatible with every system >update I've installed. What's the problem? >Brian Keller The problem probably has something to do with the fact that Borland has pulled out of the Macintosh market, and isn't supporting any of their Macintosh products any more. This includes Turbo Pascal as well as Sidekick Plus and Reflex. This happened quite a while ago. --- Alex UUCP: {att,backbones}!ucbvax!franny!c8s-an INTERNET: c8s-an%franny.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu FIDONET: Alex.Lau@bmug.fidonet.org (1:161/444)
g556871349ea@deneb.ucdavis.edu (0040;0000023433;0;745;352;) (11/18/89)
In article <5636@umd5.umd.edu> jg108@umd5.umd.edu (Martin Walser) writes:
i<<stuff deleted about pros and cons of Turbo Pascal>>
I hope this doesn't turn into a mountain because it's come up so many times
before. So some people dislike TP. I have absolutely no problems with it
because it is reliable and easy to move stuff from the Unix computers. Most
of all, I do actively promote it in the class I teach so that I don't have to
answer questions specific to the compiler because anyone who has taken a
Pascal class should be able to get cracking in Turbo Pascal at the gun. I don't
think I could do that with the other compilers and I wouldn't, since I'm paid
to teach science (this class about computer chemical models) and not
programming. I don't use the mainframe because there is only one modem in the
lab that I'm designated to. With TP Educational Discounts, each student can
get their own compiler and the manual which incidentally, I feel is adequate.
The Unimover doesn't make sense at first, and RMaker isn't particlularly well
documented in the TP manual. So all I'm trying to point out is that TP has its
place and I imagine the educational arena is a fairly large one.
Colin Ong
Dept. LAWR
UC Daviscortesi@infmx.UUCP (David Cortesi) (11/18/89)
In article <5636@umd5.umd.edu> jg108@umd5.umd.edu (Martin Walser) writes: >>> [Somebody said] Certainly Turbo Pascal is not [worthwhile]. >> [Somebody else said] What's wrong with Turbo Pascal? > [Then Martin Walser explained] IMHO ... It looks like > Borland merely ported it straight from the PC... Wherever Borland got it, they did NOT port if from the PC. What they sell as "Turbo Pascal Mac" has *many* and *serious* incompatibilities with Turbo Pascal for the PC. It is in no way the same compiler or based on the same compiler. It is a decent implementation of a nice, Wirth- or ANSI-standard compiler (proof positive it isn't "Turbo" :-).
nilesinc@well.UUCP (Avi Rappoport) (11/21/89)
In article <5636@umd5.umd.edu> jg108@umd5.umd.edu (Martin Walser) writes: >can be accomplished with the Mac interface. I'm not crazy about it. A friend >of mine suggested buying Lightspeed Pascal which he says is much more user- >friendly and easier to use even. I don't know, but I trust his judgement. He's No question, THINK Pascal (used to be Lightspeed) has a Mac-like if sometimes arcane interface. It's got its problems, but it feels like a Mac program. -- Help me justify my online bills: ask me EndNote questions, please! -- Avi Rappoport nilesinc@well.UUCP, Niles.Assoc on AppleLink 415-655-6666 2000 Hearst, Berkeley, CA 94709