rs4u+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Richard Siegel) (06/01/87)
We've had MPW here at work for a while, and this morning, I said
what the hell, let's try it.
"Trying it" consisted of installing MPW on my hard drive, copying the
sources for FzzPlot into a folder under MPW's domain,, and rebuilding
FzzPlot from scratch.
The results? Four hours later, I said "Never again."
The final product produced with MPW Pascal was about 8K smaller than
the application produced by Lightspeed Pascal. However, the two
applications completed a task (loading a 512-point text file and plotting
its data) in the same amount of time, to within a tenth of a second.
I would assume that the smaller application size is because MPW strips
code on a procedural basis, while Lightspeed Pascal strips code
on a library-by-library basis.
In any case, I found that the hassle of setting up a makefile, coupled
with the long compile and link times, do not make it worth the
smaller code size and extra tools (such as PasRef and PasMat) that MPW
provides, nice though they be.
I'm sticking with Lightspeed Pascal. I see nothing to justify the
two megabytes that MPW occupies on my hard drive.
Any comments? Please mail directly to me, and I'll summarize for the net.
--Rich
Richard M. Siegel
R-Squared Development Systems
134 Horseshoe Drive
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
(804) 229-2152 [After 6pm eastern time only]
Arpanet: rs4u@andrew.cmu.edu
Uucp: {your fave gateway}!seismo!andrew.cmu.edu!rs4u
Disclaimer? I don't even KNOW 'ererhugo@gnome.cs.cmu.edu (Peter Su) (06/02/87)
Yes it's true, MPW for straight Pascal or C development is a total
crock. What you gain in the flexibility of the evironment
(programmable editor, the MPW "tools" etc tec) really isn't worth the
loss in speed and convenience.
BUT, there is one very overpowering reason to put up with it all, and
that is, MacApp. No other development system has it, and no other
Pascal compiler compiles it, and boy is it nice.
Of course, using it doubles your compile-link-edit time, and adds a
LOT of code to your application, and it takes up another 2 Meg on your
hard disk, but if you are developing BIG, compilcated applications
that need to have a great user interface, Macapp is great. Like, to
get a simple program with DAs, printing and scrollable windows (in
both directions), you just plug in a few routines to set up and
display whatever data structures the program manipulates, compile
away, make a few library calls, and boom, it's done. No muss, no fuss,
and it's really that easy.
So, that's why I'd use MPW. But, I'd only like using MPW on a Mac II
with a big disk...Mac II's are fast enough to make MPW not quite so
slow.
Now, if those Think folks could add a bit of Objectness to their
C/Pascal compilers...well, THEN we'd have something.
Cheers,
Pete
--
ARPA: hugo@gnome.cs.cmu.edu BELL:412-681-7431
UUCP: ...!{ucbvax,ihnp4,cmucspt}!hugo@gnome.cs.cmu.edu
USPS: 5170 Beeler St., Pittsburgh PA 15213
"There are reports that many executives make their decisions by
flipping coins or by throwing darts, etc. It is also rumored that
some college professors prepare their grades on such a basis."
- Donald Knuthbobc@tikal.UUCP (06/04/87)
I have never used Lightspeed Pascal and so I can not speak to MPW
Pascal versus Lightspeed Pascal. I do use MPW, and would not consider
using any thing less powerful. First I must admit that I do a lot of
unix programming and Makefiles and scripts do not scare me. I have
not seen any other system that has all of the functions of MPW.
I do not like using a editor with less features then MPW (even unix
"vi", VMS "edt", pale in comparision EMACS might compete, but I have
never spent the time to learn to use it).
Should very one use MPW? most likely not. I will admit that I am a
`power user' when it comes to MPW, and can use most of it's features
to my advantage.
The number of MPW features that I use would take a while to list, the
ability to write scripts is there, as is the ability to add commands to
menus, rez is much better then RMaker, MPW also fits my style of
programming, I can mix code between Assembler, C, Modula-2 and Pascal
with out to much effort. (Product Plug) I really like the TML
Modula-2 compiler (but then I should I did it), and in a lot of places
I wrote the glue code in assembler and then created a Modula-2 interface
to it (there are some things that are just a pain in a HLL). The MPW
assembler is the best assembler that I have seen in a long time (not
since the IBM 360/370 assembler G and the PDP-11 Macro-11).
I short I just felt that MPW should have a few cheers from us people
who use it. (Even if it does not relate to the Light Speed Pascal, vs
MPW Pascal debate). Thank You Apple for developing MPW.
Bob Campbell
For a while longer (till June 11).
Teltone Corporation 18520 - 66th AVE NE
P.O. Box 657 Seattle, WA 98155
Kirkland, WA 98033
bobc@tikal.teltone.com
{amc,dataio,fluke,hplsla,sunup,uw-beaver}!tikal!bobc
tikal!bobc@beaver.cs.washington.EDU