Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!yale!eagle!bparsia
From: bparsia@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re^2: $$$ & THINK Pascal 3.0
Message-ID: <12799@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 90 20:19:24 GMT
References: <12004@eagle.wesleyan.edu> <2277@husc6.harvard.edu> <13228@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> <2293@husc6.harvard.edu>
Lines: 47

article <2293@husc6.harvard.edu>, siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) writes:
> 
> 	THINK Pascal still supports standard Pascal, and in 3.0, we've added
> some new features to help people who use standard Pascal. For example, there's
> $S to help with segmentation, $N++ to help with tracing, a revised profiler,
> support in LightsBug to see where in the calling routine the current routine
> was called (all the way up the stack), improved importing and exporting of
> MPW .O files, support for much larger source files, and various internal
> bug fixes. You don't pay a penalty for the Object Pascal features, and there's
> no reason you should have to.

But Rich, we do. That was the point of my orginal (and subsequent posts). We
*have* to pay for TCl. It's true, one does get it when one pays for it, but I,
for one, don't want it (yet). But I *do* want the nifty procedural stuff you
mentioned, plus the other ones mentioned in the press release. I want a THINK
Pascal 3.0 lite.

> 
> 	Pascal 2.0 is completely superseded by Pascal 3.0; it's not common
> practice in the software industry to keep selling old versions after a new
> release has been made.

True, but it is common practice to have low-end and high-end (super developer,
power user, I-want-every-bell-and-I'll-use-them-all-and-still-not-be-happy)
products. What I object to it the writing of by Symantec of the low/mid-end,
and the repositioning of THINK Pascal as super-developer fodder. That's the way
I regarded THINK C.

> 
> 	I might add that I use standard Pascal heavily still; the new features
> are a big help. As far as I'm concerned, the world doesn't revolve around
> MacApp, and there's still a place for programs which are not object-oriented.
> 
> R.

I'm glad you feel this way. However, as long as Symantec bundles (and
rightfully charges for) the Object Pascal features (not the bare support in ThP
2.0, but stuff like the class library), we, as consumers, have no choice. We
are stuck with buying and paying for a whole lotta functionality we might not
need or want. If that's your companies strategy, okey, no problem. I'm not out
to flame you. But I do think it is a mistake, and will lose some nice buyers
(how many, I don't know; Symantec might have done market research and found
that this is the right move for them; in that case, ignore my complaints, it's
obvious that I am, in this case, a niche market).

Thanks for talking.
Bijan J. Parsia