billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (Steven James Bollinger) (11/08/88)
I and a friend were working on a color version of ShowINIT. After posting an earlier flame about GetCIcon's problems, someone steered us towards a revision by Paul Mercer posted on AppleLink. I had a friend bring it down for me and I assembled it under MPW. After an uneventful assembly I exited MPW and tried to run '.o convert', a program which would convert the '.o' file produced by MPW into a library for use in LightSpeed Pascal (v1.11). Much to my surprise, instead of a library, I garnered an error message. 'Files which contain computed references can not be converted.' this surprised me because the Black and White version had converted succesfully. The color version DOES convert to a Library in THINK C 3.01 (using the equivalent converter). I used the most recent version of the Pascal converter that exists (to my knowledge), version 1.1. It really surprises me that I continue to stick with a company which constantly hangs its Pascal customers out to dry in favor of c programmers. It isn't that c programmers aren't deserving, but they have had many more updates than LS Pascal has. I suppose this will be rectified in LS Pascal 2.0, but I have long since given up belief in its existence. Besides, good intentions (LS Pascal 2.0) don't go as far as product (a working converter). I'm just about fed up with all this. +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (11/08/88)
Please pardon in advance any flames that I emit in the course of this posting. In article <3f88979c.59b7@sauron.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (Steven James Bollinger) writes: >Much to my surprise, instead of a library, I garnered an error message. >'Files which contain computed references can not be converted.' this surprised >me because the Black and White version had converted succesfully. The color The fact that one program converts and one doesn't means nothing. The reason that the Lightspeed Pascal .O converter cannot convert the aforementioned .O file is due to the design of the Lightspeed Pascal linker, which doesn't support computed references. The LightspeedC linker, which is of newer design, does so, as far as I am aware. > It really surprises me that I continue to stick with a company which >constantly hangs its Pascal customers out to dry in favor of c programmers. Frankly, this is a patently unfair statement. We ofer no favor towards users of either language. It is true that upgrade patches and so forth have been more abundantfor C than they have for Pascal, but this does not mean that we hate Pascal programmers, or that we love C programmers, or that we're trying to hang anyone out to dry. With respect to Pascal, we have not been idle, and I resent any implication to the contrary (since I am one of these non-idle programmers). It was our decision to concentrate our effort on producing Lightspeed Pascal 2.0, which is superior in all respects to competing products, AND to version 1.11 rather than delay version 2 for the sake of providing intermediate patches. I feel competent to say the above because (1) I am involved with the new version of Pascal, and (2) I am a Pascal programmer. >updates than LS Pascal has. I suppose this will be rectified in LS Pascal >2.0, but I have long since given up belief in its existence. Besides, good Assuming that you've filed your upgrade form, you'll have version 2 in your hands extremely soon. (Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to say when until it happens, but when I can say more, I will.) --Rich Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: singer@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!singer 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.
netnews@caen.engin.umich.edu (CAEN Netnews) (11/09/88)
>'Files which contain computed references can not be converted.' this surprised >me because the Black and White version had converted succesfully. The color From: billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (Steven James Bollinger) Path: sol.engin.umich.edu!billkatt > The fact that one program converts and one doesn't means nothing. > The reason that the Lightspeed Pascal .O converter cannot convert >the aforementioned .O file is due to the design of the Lightspeed Pascal >linker, which doesn't support computed references. The LightspeedC linker, >which is of newer design, does so, as far as I am aware. I figured that it was a limitation in the definition of the libraries and how the linker handles them. Revisions to the linker would be major, instead of minor changes to the converter. But that is still a problem. Lightspeed Pascal should have been revised to fix the problem long ago (at least a year). I also only mentioned that the C converter would convert it to show that it was not a corrupted file and that it is reasonable to expect a non-MPW language to support computed references. >> It really surprises me that I continue to stick with a company which >>constantly hangs its Pascal customers out to dry in favor of c programmers. > > Frankly, this is a patently unfair statement. We ofer no favor towards >users of either language. It is true that upgrade patches and so forth have >been more abundantfor C than they have for Pascal, but this does not mean >that we hate Pascal programmers, or that we love C programmers, or that >we're trying to hang anyone out to dry. With respect to Pascal, we >have not been idle, and I resent any implication to the contrary (since I >am one of these non-idle programmers). It was our decision to concentrate >our effort on producing Lightspeed Pascal 2.0, which is superior in >all respects to competing products, AND to version 1.11 > rather than delay version 2 for the sake of providing intermediate patches. > I stand behind what I said in this case. I feel you do provide favor toward THINK C users. I wouldn't call two major upgrades (1.0->3.0) and various minor upgrades comparable to LS Pascal's 1 minor upgrade (1.0->1.1) and a sub-minor upgrade (1.1->1.11, although close to my heart because I own a Mac II). And I wouldn't say you are idle (I have a friend who is betaing LS Pascal 2.0), only that you were idle for too long. If you care to disagree, I would suggest that you respond in reference to the continuing (2 years now) lack of cursor-key support, or the inablility to specify flags for CODE resources generated or programs generated (right down to the good ole' bundle bit). Also, I wouldn't complain about things so close to the release of a major revision if I felt that the major revision were due soon. I had expected it at the end of September, but was disappointed, the end of October was disappointing to me too. I think you should have released revisions for the old one (1.11) just before you began work on 2.0, in order to tide us over. >>updates than LS Pascal has. I suppose this will be rectified in LS Pascal >>2.0, but I have long since given up belief in its existence. Besides, good > > Assuming that you've filed your upgrade form, you'll have >version 2 in your hands extremely soon. (Unfortunately, I'm not >allowed to say when until it happens, but when I can say more, I will.) > I understand the gag order, and believe in not pre-announcing products. I admire the person who fired your previous ad agency for pre-announcing THINK C 3.0. But I can't even believe you when you say extremely soon because being on a project always produces high hopes and great expectations. I am writing this message from Ann Arbor, Mi., and with FullWrite, this town invented the term 'real soon now', so I have learned to wait until I see something (actually, see it on shelves) before I believe it. I think it is best expressed by the following situation: I have a friend who betas LS Pascal 2.0, and he thinks I am some kind of programming god. He thinks so simply because I write a cdev with INIT portion (Ignisound) in Lightspeed Pascal 1.11. It amazes him that I could possibly write such an animal in a language that has core routines that are essentially 3 years old. On a better note, he wants me to give him my code so he can test it under 2.0 and report back any incompatibilities to you, which makes him a great choice for a beta tester (hindsight is 20/20). I am not trying to become your adversary. I did pick Lightspeed Pascal as my developing language after I recieved no support from TML. (Doing ANYTHING in TML gives you a sense of accomplishment, with its cryptic instructions and lack of debugger.) I still use it despite its creaking joints and gray hairs. I also know great things are afoot (if THINK C 3.0 is any indication). I can best sum it up as I did on my summary line: 'Its not too little, its just too late'. If 2.0 comes out within a week I'll feel real stupid. +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+