STORKEL@RICE.BITNET (Scott Storkel) (09/10/87)
In his posting about MPW, Joel West stated that MPW requires 1Mb and runs only
on a hard disk. This is NOT the case. True, MPW requires 1Mb RAM, but it CAN be
run from two 800k floppies. I will admit that this is far from the ideal
situation, and that to compile programs of any size a hard disk is a must, but
for the floppy-switch masochists the option is available.
I am not familiar with LightSpeed, but having worked with MPW I can tell you
that it is suitable for developing ANY type of Mac software, be it programs,
DA's, FKEY's, whatever. The MPW Shell is not the easiest to use, but includes
a programming language the is very sophisticated and allows the user to do such
things as add new commands to menus, compile and runs programs, build software
tools, and on and on.
MPW Pascal is fairly close to Lisa Pascal in syntax, and is not the world's
fastest compiler, but is adequate. All the files needed to interface programs
to the various toolbox routines (including routines in the MacII ROM) are
included. The compiler can generate regular 68000 code, as well as code for the
68020, and 68881. If a compiler option is set, calls to the SANE routines will
also generate in-line 68881 calls.
One of the nice features of MPW is that all compilers run as "tools" under the
MPW Shell. This means that if a new compiler supports the MPW Linker format
that routines written in the new language can be linked to code from existing
languages. Apple currently offers 68xxx Assembler, Pascal and C compilers that
run under MPW. The 68xxx Assembler is included with the standard MPW package,
but the Pascal and C compilers are extra. I recall reading somewhere that
somebody (Bordland?) is coming out with a Modula compiler that runs under MPW.
The version of MPW that I am using is 2.0B1. I think this is the most recent
version. Currently, my onl;y complaint with MPW is the documentation, or rather
the lack there of. The documentation for the Pascal compiler is fairly
complete, but certian Shell commands are documented poorly, or not at all. The
system is quite useable as it is, but it would be nice to have the extra power
of features like libraries documented.
So, to summarize, if you want the most powerful development system available
for the Mac, and can afford it, buy MPW. If you will only be writing small
programs, or are not interested in developing huge applications, it would
probably be smarter to go with LightSpeed.
Scott Storkel (STORKEL@RICE.BITNET)
Macintosh Software Development
Institute for Computer Services and Applications
Rice University
Disclaimer: The views presented here are my own and do not reflect the opinions
of Rice University, ICSA, or Alex Kazim.
olson@endor.harvard.edu (Eric Olson) (09/11/87)
In article <111STORKEL@RICE> STORKEL@RICE.BITNET (Scott Storkel) writes: > >The version of MPW that I am using is 2.0B1. I think this is the most recent MPW, C, and Pascal version 2.0 release is now available from APDA. -Eric Eric K. Olson olson@endor.harvard.edu harvard!endor!olson
drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) (09/15/87)
In article <111STORKEL@RICE>, STORKEL@RICE.BITNET (Scott Storkel) writes: ... > I am not familiar with LightSpeed, but having worked with MPW I can tell you > that it is suitable for developing ANY type of Mac software, be it programs, > DA's, FKEY's, whatever. The MPW Shell is not the easiest to use, but includes > a programming language the is very sophisticated and allows the user to do such > things as add new commands to menus, compile and runs programs, build software > tools, and on and on. > You can produce any type of Mac software with LightSpeed C or Pascal also . ... > One of the nice features of MPW is that all compilers run as "tools" under the > MPW Shell. This means that if a new compiler supports the MPW Linker format > that routines written in the new language can be linked to code from existing > languages. Apple currently offers 68xxx Assembler, Pascal and C compilers that > run under MPW. The 68xxx Assembler is included with the standard MPW package, > but the Pascal and C compilers are extra. I recall reading somewhere that > somebody (Bordland?) is coming out with a Modula compiler that runs under MPW. > There are two MPW Modula-2 compilers and they are already on the market. There is TML Modula-2 (by TML Systems of Jacksonville, FL) and SemperSoft Modula-2 (by Semper Software of Glen Ellyn, IL). However, your purported ease of linking is a bit off as you have to play games based upon the calling sequence expected. MPW C and Pascal get around this by declaring Pascal and C keywords as flags to the compiler. The Modula-2 compilers conform to the Pascal standard for calling sequence and can't directly call C routines. ... > So, to summarize, if you want the most powerful development system available > for the Mac, and can afford it, buy MPW. If you will only be writing small > programs, or are not interested in developing huge applications, it would > probably be smarter to go with LightSpeed. > I mostly agree with this paragraph. Note however that small is a relative term. Scott Watson's Red Ryder program, which is in the 200K range in version 10.0, is written in LightSpeed C. I don't believe that we could have developed dBASE Mac in LightSpeed or that other applications in the 700K-800K range are viable candidates for either of the Think products, but I'm not sure where the dividing line is (I think that it's around 300K somewhere, but I'm not curious enough to spend the time and effort investigating it). Dennis Cohen Ashton-Tate Glendale Development Center dBASE Mac Development Team -------------------------- Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are my own. I do not know what opinions (if any) my employer might have.