bushnel@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (60163000) (10/10/88)
Hello: Last Saturday, I was in the showroom of ComputerWare in Palo Alto looking at the new version of Lightspeed C (ver. 3.0). Everyone I've talked to has had nothing but praise for Lightspeed C, but I noticed some fine print on the box which stated that in order to run the source-level debugger, I needed 2 Mbytes of memory. I pressed the sales staff on this, and they helpfully provided me with the manual of their demo version. (Unfortunately, I arrived just before closing time, so I didn't get to try it out on a machine.) The manual stated very clearly that the source-level debugger must be used with MultiFinder in a partition of at least 150k. Lightspeed C requires a partition of 500k (700k is default). On a 1 Mbyte machine this really wouldn't leave much room for the System and Finder. What I would like to know is this: Will I be able to run all the features of Lightspeed C on my 1 Mbyte SE, or do I really have to spend the hundreds of dollars for a memory upgrade to properly use all the features of the package? Is Lightspeed C such a good deal already that even if I can't use the source-level debugger, is it still worth it? I've used Lightspeed Pascal and Turbo Pascal, and I find I much prefer Lightspeed Pascal because of the source-level debugging capabilities. How similar is the Lightspeed C interface to the Lightspeed Pascal interface? Can I use Lightspeed Pascal libraries in my Lightspeed C programs and visa-versa? Thanks for your input, Bill Bushnell bushnel@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Bill Bushnell)
singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (10/10/88)
In article <5045@saturn.ucsc.edu> bushnel@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Bill Bushnell) writes: > What I would like to know is this: Will I be able to run all the >features of Lightspeed C on my 1 Mbyte SE, or do I really have to spend the >hundreds of dollars for a memory upgrade to properly use all the features of >the package? Is Lightspeed C such a good deal already that even if I can't >use the source-level debugger, is it still worth it? I've used Lightspeed >Pascal and Turbo Pascal, and I find I much prefer Lightspeed Pascal because >of the source-level debugging capabilities. How similar is the Lightspeed C >interface to the Lightspeed Pascal interface? Can I use Lightspeed Pascal >libraries in my Lightspeed C programs and visa-versa? In order to make effective use of the debugger, you need to have at least two MB, and the more memory you have, the better things will work (I have 2.5MB in my Plus, which seems to be quite comfortable). However, theother features that make LightspeedC great - fast compilation, instant linking, project management, auto-make, fast editor - do not require more than 1 MB unless you want to run LightspeedC under MultiFinder. The interface to LightspeedC's debugger is considerably different than the interface to Lightspeed Pascal's debugger; the C source debugger is a newer creation than the Pascal debugger, and is in some ways more refined, but since it runs as separate task under MultiFinder, the debugger isn't as seamless as the Pascal debugger. Right now, you can't use Pascal libraries in C projects, but the upcoming release of Pascal will support the direct inclusion of C libraries (and MPW .O files) into projects. Even if you don't have the memory, LightspeedC would still be a good move, and you can always save your pennies auntil you have enough to buy an inexpensive upgrade (the Dove MacSnap 2SE seems to work OK). --Rich Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: singer@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!singer Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305 Any opinions stated in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of Symantec Corporation or its employees.