dean@xcssun.Berkeley.EDU (12/03/88)
Seeing as my LSP 1.11 is a bit out of date, it's time to consider the upgrade possibilities: 1) LSP 2.0 : [Note: I did _not_ receive an upgrade notice, at least as of a week ago.... I registered my 1.0 package in October 1987, so I think Think knows who I am...] Should I A) Order the $50 upgrade from Symantec (~$56 with tax and shipping) or B) But LSP 2.0 from MacConnection ? (Haven't checked the price recently, but it was $65 + $3 for overnight shipping) Which way will I get it faster ? or 2) Forget LSP and get TML Pascal II ? Advantages that I see of (2) over (1). I get the MPW shell, which is needed for some other things that I'd like to run, including some other compilers. Questions: Which compiler generates tighter code ? Faster code ? (please include sources of all benchmarks, along with compliation options, so we can interpert what we get, as I assume some of netters are interested in this, too.) Will TML Pascal compile MacApp ? (from a previous posting I gather that the MPW Assembler (not included) is required to actaully make anything run.) Why does Symantec advertise Object Pascal support, then say MacApp compatibility coming soon ? (I _know_ that you don't have to support MacApp to be an object-oriented language, but I do question the value of an Object Pascal that can't compile the #1 Object Pascal program.) --- Drew Dean Internet: dean@xcssun.berkeley.edu UUCP: ...!ucbvax!xcssun!dean
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (12/05/88)
In article <7962@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> dean@xcssun.Berkeley.EDU () writes: Note that since I work for the competition, you should consider carefully everything I say very carefully - don't take my word for it. (Though I won't lie to you. :-) You're likely to get Lightspeed Pascal 2.0 faster if you order through MacConnection, since to order the upgrade involves getting the form, filing the form, having it processed, and having it shipped - about 2 weeks, in all. MacConnection, on the other hand, will ship it overnight. > Which compiler generates tighter code ? Faster code ? Without a doubt, Lightspeed Pascal 2.0. As soon as I find the appropriate pages, I'll post complete speed and size comparisons, so you can see for yourself, and I'll post a StuffIt of the sources we used, so you can try for yourself. > Will TML Pascal compile MacApp ? (from a previous posting I gather I've heard that it won't, but that TML has provided some fixes to make it so; I haven't tried ot myself though. >run.) Why does Symantec advertise Object Pascal support, then say MacApp >compatibility coming soon ? (I _know_ that you don't have to support MacApp >to be an object-oriented language, but I do question the value of an Object >Pascal that can't compile the #1 Object Pascal program.) MacApp support in Lightspeed Pascal isn't an Object Pascal issue, it's a porting issue; some source files need to be reorganized, since Lightspeed Pascal doesn't support the $S directive, and some code needs to be modified, since MacApp does strange things (like rely on code segments being named) in the course of its memory management. At any rate, the ads aren't misleading. Object Pascal support does not imply MacApp support, and one doesn't NEED MacApp to write programs in Object Pascal. I'll post benchmark sources and results as soon as I get my hands on them; probably later this morning. --Rich Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305 Any opinions stated in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of Symantec Corporation or its employees.