Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!mlab2 From: mlab2@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Turbo vs. LSP (was Re:Turbo Pascal & PopUp Menus Message-ID: <26646.273aede6@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> Date: 9 Nov 90 22:56:54 GMT References: <414@ub.d.umn.edu> <1363@radius.com> <13685@june.cs.washington.edu> Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services Lines: 25 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.