mfort@ub.d.umn.edu (Michael Fort) (11/08/90)
I have noticed that Turbo Pascal 1.0 only supports the toolbox calls from the first three Inside Macintosh volumes. Correct me, please, if I am wrong. The other day, I noticed a line in some source I never saw before. It read: Procedure Debugger; Inline $ff69; <-- Trap number probably different. So I figured that this is the external link to the outside world for Toolbox calls. I was hoping that someone could tell me if this is right. More important, If I set up the PopupMenuSelect function, I am unsuccessful. When I call this routine the way that Inside Volume 5 suggests, the function seems to do nothing as though it were a return function. Sorry that I can't remember the page number, however it was the pseudo-code example in the Menu Manager section. As I don't have any other compilers, I need it to work on Turbo! Email me, OR post it for other Turbo programmers, Thanks ahead of time! Mike Fort mfort@ub.d.umn.edu, OR mfort@cpe.d.umn.edu
lemke@radius.com (Steve Lemke) (11/09/90)
mfort@ub.d.umn.edu (Michael Fort) writes: }I have noticed that Turbo Pascal 1.0 only supports the toolbox calls from the }first three Inside Macintosh volumes. Correct me, please, if I am wrong. No, that's probably right. Borland did, however, release ONE upgrade to Turbo Pascal, (1.1?) that provided minimal support for the Mac SE and II. }The other day, I noticed a line in some source I never saw before. It read: } }Procedure Debugger; }Inline $ff69; <-- Trap number probably different. } }So I figured that this is the external link to the outside world for Toolbox }calls. I was hoping that someone could tell me if this is right. Actually, my guess would be that that was simply inline code to call the trap that activates the debugger (MacsBug, etc.). Thus if you have a line in your code that reads "Debugger;" you will drop into MacsBug - handy for debugging a certain part of code that seems to have a problem. }More important, If I set up the PopupMenuSelect function, I am unsuccessful. }When I call this routine the way that Inside Volume 5 suggests, the function }seems to do nothing as though it were a return function. Sorry that I can't }remember the page number, however it was the pseudo-code example in the Menu }Manager section. Well, you really should get the upgrade - if they still sell it it will cost you about $15. However, and I'm sure just about any other Mac programmers would agree, your $15 would be MUCH better spent towards the purchase of THINK Pascal. Just about anythink you might like about Turbo is probably also a feature in THINK Pascal (and probably better). In addition, Symantec actively supports THINK Pascal; Borland does NOT actively support Turbo Pascal. THINK Pascal is current, and will probably soon even work in System 7.0b1. Don't hold your breath with Turbo - they haven't done anything with it in over two years. }As I don't have any other compilers, I need it to work on Turbo! Well, I still stick to my main point - you should upgrade. I feel qualified to recommend this as I spent my hard-earned cash (while finishing college) on Turbo Pascal (big mistake) and the upgrade, too (bigger mistake), and finally on THINK Pascal (best programming environment I ever bought!). I've since upgraded from THINK Pascal 2.0 to 3.0, and to 3.01 - Symantec releases small updates periodically to fix little things, but (to date) are free and are widely distributed electronically. Which system would YOU rather program in? }Thanks ahead of time! No problem. }Mike Fort }mfort@ub.d.umn.edu, OR mfort@cpe.d.umn.edu -- ----- Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose ----- ----- Reply to: lemke@radius.com (Note: NEW domain-style address!!) -----
chou@cs.washington.edu (Pai Chou) (11/09/90)
In article <1363@radius.com> lemke@radius.com (Steve Lemke) writes: >mfort@ub.d.umn.edu (Michael Fort) writes: >Well, I still stick to my main point - you should upgrade. I feel qualified >to recommend this as I spent my hard-earned cash (while finishing college) on >Turbo Pascal (big mistake) and the upgrade, too (bigger mistake), and finally >on THINK Pascal (best programming environment I ever bought!). I've since >upgraded from THINK Pascal 2.0 to 3.0, and to 3.01 - Symantec releases small >updates periodically to fix little things, but (to date) are free and are >widely distributed electronically. Which system would YOU rather program in? That's funny, I have just the opposite experience. I started with Turbo, but everybody told me how wonderful THINK Pascal was, so I bought it. I hardly used it. I prefer the Turbo setup: one single compiler and no other baggage files (units) messing up my directory. Its size is also amazingly small. I find myself getting a lot more work done with Turbo than with THINK. Well, it's just my personal experience. Am I the only one that prefers Turbo over THINK? Pai Chou chou@june.cs.washington.edu
gsm@mitre.org (Gio Marzot) (11/09/90)
In article <13685@june.cs.washington.edu> chou@cs.washington.edu (Pai Chou) writes: > Am I the only one that prefers Turbo over THINK? I have used both and cast my whole-hearted vote for -ThinkPascal.As mentioned before the support alone may be justification enough.But there is also the Think Class Library, the Class Browser, the debugger (LightsBug) etc. A great environment in which to learn and utilize OOP. It may be , as you say, that Turbo may be more wieldy for small scale development. But I find the ThinkP environment fairly easy to navigate and as full featured as I have need. PS. Not affiliated with Symantec and only personal opinions stated PPS. Popups no problem. G.Marzot Responsibility for the views expressed here belongs only to myself and not to any organization.
torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (11/10/90)
chou@cs.washington.edu (Pai Chou) writes: >That's funny, I have just the opposite experience. I started with >Turbo, but everybody told me how wonderful THINK Pascal was, so I >bought it. I hardly used it. I prefer the Turbo setup: one single >compiler and no other baggage files (units) messing up my directory. >Its size is also amazingly small. I find myself getting a lot more >work done with Turbo than with THINK. Well, it's just my personal >experience. Am I the only one that prefers Turbo over THINK? I'd say so... You have to remember that Borland has basically dropped all Mac development for the past two years - although they haven't told anyone, they are supposedly going to formally announce their withdrawal from the Mac market very soon. That means that Turbo lacks all the new interfaces/libraries to the neat things Apple has stuck in the System over the past two years (like 32-bit QD, Midi manager, all of the new System 7 stuff etc). If you're programming simple command-line type interfaces, you're probably fine with Turbo. Anything more than that, and Think is the only way to go. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Jim Bolger - a National landslide of incompetence
chou@cs.washington.edu (Pai Chou) (11/10/90)
In article <1990Nov9.192322.22179@Neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) writes: > That means that Turbo lacks all the new interfaces/libraries to the neat >things Apple has stuck in the System over the past two years (like >32-bit QD, Midi manager, all of the new System 7 stuff etc). > > If you're programming simple command-line type interfaces, you're probably >fine with Turbo. Anything more than that, and Think is the only way to go. Well, I don't do any "command-line" type interface at all; my programs are just as Mac'ish as they can be. I have been able to add some new stuff such as script manager unit using Apple's supplement files without any modification. If all you have is a MacPlus/SE without a hard disk, then I think Turbo is a good development environment. There are many students out here who can't afford the luxury of a 32-bit QD Mac which can cost many times their tuition. Pai Chou
d88-cbr@dront.nada.kth.se (Christian Beijner) (11/10/90)
In article <13685@june.cs.washington.edu> chou@june.cs.washington.edu (Pai Chou) writes: >That's funny, I have just the opposite experience. I started with >Turbo, but everybody told me how wonderful THINK Pascal was, so I >bought it. I hardly used it. I prefer the Turbo setup: one single >compiler and no other baggage files (units) messing up my directory. >Its size is also amazingly small. I find myself getting a lot more >work done with Turbo than with THINK. Well, it's just my personal >experience. Am I the only one that prefers Turbo over THINK? > >Pai Chou >chou@june.cs.washington.edu I also prefer Turbo, this is due to several reasons. 1) The projects in Think. Every time you compile something in Think it creates a project file which is larger than the resulting application would be. Just by considering the number of "small" Pascal programs I have I can figure out that If I had made them all in Think, I would have had Think project on my HD and nothing else. Also anyone creating and above all changing the appearance of the order of files in Think projects know this can be a complete pain. (I have Think experience from using it on the work) 2) Speed. Compiling Turbo programs are a real joy compared to Think. According to Thinks ads etc., both programs should compile at the same speed, but they didnt mention the link times which easily exceed the compile time on Think. 3) Formatting. I mean really, why should programmers be hit over their fingers for wanting to format programs their own way. Think automatically formats my text its way. (There are options on this, but they are few and there is no "shut off") My Turbo programs become shorter and more easily read. 4) Pascal interpreting: When choosing pascal Think lacked such Pascal features as. 1) Intervals in case. You had to write 1,2,3,4,5,6 etc. (They have it now) 2) Otherwise. You simply have to have it when programming in Think. 3) Standard operations on all types. You cant write: $00FF and $FF00 'Hello '+'there' #13 (This is chr(13)) 5) Pros of Think 1) The debugger. 6) Cons of Turbo 1) Cant handle arrowkeys (this IS a big minus) 2) Will not be updated. 7) Cons of both: When I started programming I used PolyPascal (made by the original programmer of Turbo Pascal, a dane) There was something called "Typed constants" You wrote something like this: CONST prompt:string(.20.)='Please do this and this'; This created a reseved space in the CODE segment where this constant existed. The advantage was that the constant was initialized, existed during runtime, and COULD be modified as a variable. (Not quite a constant) Why have none of the Pascal implementers included this beautiful feature. (For any programmer not seeing the usefulness of this, take a look of the initializing part of one of your programs, how many variables you initialize to the same value with normal constants or time-consuming resource-leading) Sorry bout the long letter but I cannot understand how Think got this big. /Chris
Jim.Lynch@f444.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Lynch) (11/15/90)
I work in C and have used Think and Turbo C; I don't like the editors of
either one and I prefer Turbo's policy of reporting more than one error and
allowing you to select an error and see the point in the text where the error
occured, however for some reason the development seems to be faster in Think;
I think the reason for that is because I'm always running under MultiFinder.
-Jim
--
Jim Lynch - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!161!444!Jim.Lynch
INTERNET: Jim.Lynch@f444.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG