Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!cps3xx!usenet
From: usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Pascal / C
Summary: THINK C is better than Turbo Pascal
Keywords: Pascal, C, question
Message-ID: <7038@cps3xx.UUCP>
Date: 29 Mar 90 18:45:14 GMT
References: <23141@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Reply-To: moorej@cpsin3.UUCP (Jeffrey R Moore)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Engineering, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing
Lines: 30

In article <23141@unix.cis.pitt.edu> ding@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Yijun Ding) writes:
>What about Turbo Pascal for Macintosh? How does it compare to Think Pascal?

I have never used Think Pascal, but I have used Turbo Pascal.  Turbo
Pascal for the Mac is ok for causual programming, but I wouldn't want to
write anything serious in it.  Based on a couple of tests another
student and I made, Think Pascal generates much better code.  It is also
better supported.  Unless they have released a new version, Turbo is
still on version 1.1, which doesn't do much more than the original
release, which isn't much.  Turbo lacks linking options, and the editor
is bare bones. The only reason I used it over Think Pascal (It was
LightSpeed Then), was that it didn't try to beautify my source code for
me, like the LSP editor.

>Basically, I am going to choose between ThinkC / Turbo Pascal. The
latter
>is cheaper. I also notice on IBM, Turbo Pascal compiles faster than
Turbo C.

Turbo on the Mac is nothing like what it is on the IBM.  Go for Think C,
Think C is THE BEST.  I have never had a problem with it.  Its well
supported, fairly fast, and the editor is OK (I'm picky on editors).

A word of warning, stay away from Aztec C.  Its probably completely
compatable with the IBM version, but its a MAJOR headache.  I returned
my copy after the compiler started bombing during compilation.


Jeff Moore
moorej@cpsin.cps.msu.edu