sdy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Steven D. Yee -- Mr. Thrint) (06/11/88)
Just got my July MacUser and saw Symantec/THINK's add for LSC 3.0, a very small
footnote claims that the source level debugger requires 2Meg and MultiFinder
and Hard Disk recommened -- is this firm? or desired? I'd be really
disappointed if this is true -- but then I'll just need to pop for some more
drams (if I can find any). The ad states that Quark has been using 3.0 --
anyone from there want to comment?
Rich, now that the ad's out is there a more firm shipping date? or did this
slip through by accident too?
I guess I was just dreaming to think that something as useful as LSC and a
source level debugger would manage to stay in 1Meg.
steve.
--
Steven D. Yee >>> my employer does not share my opinions <<<
uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!sdy >>> (that's because I'm always right! ;-) <<<
There are ways of dealing with people like you.terranova@vms.macc.wisc.edu (06/12/88)
In article <1084@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>, sdy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Steven D. Yee -- Mr. Thrint) writes... >Just got my July MacUser and saw Symantec/THINK's add for LSC 3.0, a very small >footnote claims that the source level debugger requires 2Meg and MultiFinder ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >and Hard Disk recommened -- is this firm? or desired? I'd be really > 2MEGS STRIKES AGAIN!!! First FWP. Now LSC. What next? The Finder? Wouldn't it be nice if Apple could produce their own drams at a reasonable price? Or is this asking for too much? >steve. > > >-- >Steven D. Yee >>> my employer does not share my opinions <<< >uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!sdy >>> (that's because I'm always right! ;-) <<< > > There are ways of dealing with people like you. ------------------------+------------------------------------------------ John C. Terranova | I'd start a revolution, but I don't have time. CS, BS to be | --Billy Joel, "Close to the Boarderline" ------------------------+------------------------------------------------ I speak for myself and all those listed below. And no one else. 1) 2) 3)
spector@vx2.GBA.NYU.EDU (David HM Spector) (06/12/88)
I agree with memory prices what they are ( which is a POLITCAL PROBLEM I might add...) that it is a drag to get more memory... but.... Source level debuggers and high quality development environments require memory. There's no way around it. Be glad that the debugger is optional, and that you can still run LSC without it! THINK makes a WONDERFUL product, and they have supported it better than most software companies (for ANY kind of machine) support their products ( you see Microsoft on the net supporting THEIR C compiler?!). Perhaps we should write our congresspersons about getting the memory prices down before we lose our computer industry... then we wont go broke buying a meg or two for our computers... To be fair, I must add that I was lucky enough to have bought memory for my MacintoshII before prices went through the roof.. DHMS XYZZYGLORP
ee154aby@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Grobbins) (06/13/88)
In article <650032@vx2.GBA.NYU.EDU> spector@vx2 (David HM Spector) writes: >Source level debuggers and high quality development environments require >memory. There's no way around it. Everything requires memory. Big deal. Lightspeed Pascal is under 300K, offers great debugging facilities, and runs quite nicely on a plain Mac+. If LSC 3.0 really does need more than a meg for source level debugging, then it better be as far advanced of earlier versions as, say, LSP is of UCSD Pascal for the Apple II. Grobbins grobbins@ucsd.edu
fenwick@garth.UUCP (Stephen Fenwick) (06/14/88)
In article <365@dogie.edu> terranova@vms.macc.wisc.edu writes: >In article <1084@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>, sdy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Steven D. Yee -- Mr. Thrint) writes... > >>Just got my July MacUser and saw Symantec/THINK's add for LSC 3.0, a very small >>footnote claims that the source level debugger requires 2Meg and MultiFinder > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>and Hard Disk recommened -- is this firm? or desired? I'd be really >> > 2MEGS STRIKES AGAIN!!! > > First FWP. Now LSC. What next? The Finder? > > Wouldn't it be nice if Apple could produce their own drams at > a reasonable price? > > Or is this asking for too much? Interesting that you should mention this. An article in the San Jose Murky this Sunday mentioned that Apple has $600M, cash, and no debt. They need to dump it quickly to a) increase revenues; b) make themselves less of a takeover target. What's the book value of Micron Technology these days? Steve Fenwick -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////////// My company is not responsible for what I say. I might be... E-Mail route: ...!pyramid!garth!fenwick USPS: Intergraph APD, 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, California AT&Tnet: (415) 852-2325 //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) (06/16/88)
In article <4228@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, ee154aby@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Grobbins) writes: > > Everything requires memory. Big deal. Lightspeed Pascal is under > 300K, offers great debugging facilities, and runs quite nicely > on a plain Mac+. > LSC isn't noticeably larger than LSP, but they did things right. They run under MultiFinder (in fact, using the debugger requires MF), whereas the Pascal product crashes and burns the machine and occasionally the disk if you try to run under MultiFinder. Because of this, the current LSP release is not really compatible with current System software and will only become less compatible as time goes on and the System software gets closer to real multitasking. LSC, on the other hand, is compatible and will be very likely to stay that way. > If LSC 3.0 really does need more than a meg for source level debugging, > then it better be as far advanced of earlier versions as, say, LSP > is of UCSD Pascal for the Apple II. > It is possible to run in 1MB under MF by reducing the application's requested size from 700K to 400K and the debugger's from 400 to 200 and to use a Finder substitute in place of Finder. The problem with this "solution" is that it limits the size of the things you can write, compile, and test. For this reason, Symantec/Think said that 2MB is required to use the debugger. As far as the degree of advancement goes, it is probably a matter of opinion as to whether your criteria are met (subjective matter), but my opinion is that you will be satisfied. BTW, LSP does not satisfy me because 1) I HATE the editor 2) I run on a Mac II and a Prodigy and it still doesn't work quite right on a 68020 box, and 3) it is completely and totally incompatible with MultiFinder which is the only viable solution for someone who feels as I do about their editor. Dennis Cohen Ashton-Tate Macintosh Division dBASE Mac Development Team -------------------------- Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed above are _MINE_!
boris@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Boris Altman) (07/17/88)
I am using latest version of Light Speed C and seem to have a problem
with fseek(). I am trying to do very simple thing (he-he-he):
FILE *inp;
long seek_value;
inp=fopen("some_name", "r");
/* check return code -- no problem */
/* some unrelated code */
seek_value=10; /* the file is much longer than 10 char */
fseek (inp, seek_value, 0);
at this point fseek returns negative value, I don't know why.
Moreover, if I open file as "r+" (which should not make any difference),
fseek returns 0, but does not seem to move the "file cursor" ( I tried ftell(..)
and it came back with 0.)
The same code runs with no problems on VAX or sun. The progam is just
read-file, write-file. No user interface to speak of.
Am I doing something wrong? IS this a known problem?
Any workarounds? Any suggestions? Please reply by mail.
Details:
Mac+ with 4 meg
20 meg Jasmine (with lots of free space).
Thank you in advance.
Boris Altman
{ucbvax, ihnp4}!ulysses!boris