mlab2@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (11/10/90)
In article 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? > > Pai Chou > chou@june.cs.washington.edu I doubt it, but I too prefer Lightspeed to Turbo. I began with Turbo on the Mac, but when I found LSP, I was a full convert. As per baggage files (?), are your referring to the interface files or the libraries? As far as units go, I HAVE to segment my code up into units since it would exceed the 32K Pascal limit. With Turbo, I found the creation of and inclusion of units to be confusing. LSP has a built in editor, and a lot of other useful debugging features. I imagine this has something to do with it's size. Looking back, Turbo strikes me now as more of an assembly compiler hacked out as a grad project. It's rawness and bare-bones attitude perhaps appeals to you. As a beginner, it intimidated me. If you admire a compiler from a purely functional standpoint alone, I can see how Turbo has that "gouge & hand lathe" appeal. LSP is perhaps the drillpress and "Skil" saw - all the latest fancy features, but maybe distancing the programmer a degree from the compiling.