mo@uunet.UU.NET (Mike O'Dell) (06/16/88)
THINK's PASCAL system has a source-code debugger in 1 megabyte. How come their C system can't manage that? I predict that the 2 meg requirement will significantly impact THINK's market share, particularly if BORLAND introduces their source-code debugger and manages to keep it within 1 meg. THINK could well be cutting their own throats. I know I can't currently afford to pay $500/megabyte to upgrade my machine, so I am thinking seriously of moving my product plans back to the MessyDOS world where I can get most of the development advantages without the grief. Flames to /dev/null please. -Mike
jwhitnell@cup.portal.com (06/17/88)
Somebody bitches and moans... |THINK's PASCAL system has a source-code debugger in 1 megabyte. |How come their C system can't manage that? Pulled this off of Compuserve... #: 74016 S3/Mac Programming 16-Jun-88 02:34:02 Sb: #73966-LSC 3.0 Fm: jbx (Jorg Brown) 73177,1404 To: Phil Reed 76012,3621 (X) It should be mentioned that there are those of us at THINK who have gotten the LSC 3.0 debugger to run on a one megabyte machine. There are lots and lots of things you have to do and be careful of to get this working, though. For one, you have to use MultiLaunch or an equivalent instead of running the Finder. For another, you have to take LSC's partition down from around 700 to 400, and the debugger partition form 200 to 150. This results in compiles being limited to short source files, and programs being limited to small size; did I mention that the partition for a running program should be about 100K? Anyway, even though it IS possible, we decided that claiming we could run in a megabyte would be like saying that you could use a 128K Mac to do serious word processing. -jbx -- Jerry Whitnell jwhitnell@cup.portal.com ..!sun!cup.portal.com!jwhitnell
mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) (06/17/88)
In article <16044@uunet.UU.NET> mo@uunet.UU.NET (Mike O'Dell) writes: > THINK's PASCAL system has a source-code debugger in 1 megabyte. > How come their C system can't manage that? Wirth designed Pascal to teach students about compilers, and thus designed it to make it easy to write the compiler. That's why you have bogus requirements about no semi-colons before ENDs and the like. I have heard that C compilers (just the compiler) are roughly twice the complexity Pascal compilers, and that C++ compilers are another two times more complex. Anyone at THINK care to comment? > I predict that the 2 meg requirement will significantly impact > THINK's market share, particularly if BORLAND introduces their > source-code debugger and manages to keep it within 1 meg. I have never seen Turbo C, but I suspect it does not have the speed nor user interface of LSC. You win some, you lose some. I doubt that LSC is in trouble because RAM happens to be expensive at the moment. I predict that market shares wills stay about the same until virtual memory becomes standard for developers (two years?). At that time MPW will start to pull ahead. Brian McElhinney mce@tc.fluke.com
drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) (06/20/88)
In article <16044@uunet.UU.NET>, mo@uunet.UU.NET (Mike O'Dell) writes: > THINK's PASCAL system has a source-code debugger in 1 megabyte. > How come their C system can't manage that? Maybe because they want their C system to work properly under MultiFinder and future system releases (something the Pascal product does NOT do, as a matter of fact it still has some minor problems with the Mac II (although nothing critical)). > > I predict that the 2 meg requirement will significantly impact > THINK's market share, particularly if BORLAND introduces their > source-code debugger and manages to keep it within 1 meg. I still don't see how a Pascal system with a debugger will impact the C product.If anything, I believe that we've seen that most people who use C won't dirty their hands using a Pascal compiler and vice versa (religion rears its ugly head). > > THINK could well be cutting their own throats. > I know I can't currently afford to pay $500/megabyte to > upgrade my machine, so I am thinking seriously of moving > my product plans back to the MessyDOS world where I can get > most of the development advantages without the grief. > I don't believe that it's 500/MB if you are upgrading a Plus or SE to 2MB due to the availability of the 1+1 type clipon upgrades (they use 256K SIMMs and can be had for about $300-350. If you're talking about a Mac II, the upgrade to 2MB is also in that range and anyone who has a 1MB Mac II is, in my opinion, a masochist. Dennis Cohen Ashton-Tate Macintosh Division dBASE Mac Development Team -------------------------- Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed above are _MINE_!