Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!cae780!leadsv!hooper
From: hooper@leadsv.UUCP (Ken Hooper)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Pascal Compilers
Message-ID: <1784@leadsv.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Oct-87 12:08:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: leadsv.1784
Posted: Wed Oct 14 12:08:50 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Oct-87 05:28:44 EDT
References: <1849@crash.CTS.COM> <949@cup.portal.com>
Organization: LMSC-LEADS, Sunnyvale, Ca.
Lines: 54
Summary: Turbo Pascal is good


  My experience with Turbo Pascal has been a long and happy one. I admit it has
limitations; it is unsuitable for development of very large programs, but I
wouldn't think that would concern a novice.

  Its limitations are:
It is limited to 64K of code.
It cannot link separately compiled modules.
It is limited to 64K of non-dynamic variable space (dynamic space is limited
	only by available memory).
It is limited to 64K of heap space.
Its integral editor is a poor WordStar subset.

  Except for the editor, I have never felt any of these limitations, but I have
never written a program over 1400 lines long. If you're trying to write real
applications programs, like professional quality editors, spreadsheets or CAD
programs, these limitations will be crippling (but then, these applications
generally require assembly or a powerful `C' anyway).

  Its Advantages:
Development is very quick (I have written and debugged ~40 liners in 5 min.)
It can return you to the appropriate place in the editor upon detecting errors,
  including run-time errors.
It contains sufficient enhancements to standard Pascal, to make it a usable
  language (i.e. strings, graphics, real I/O, access to the operating system,
  direct access to memory, etc.)
It allows in-line assembly code (albeit inconveniently) thus eliminating the
  need for separate compilation and linking. (Assembly language allows for
  fine optimization of time-critical operations.)
Its very fast, particularly in compilation. With a powerful Pascal like
  Microsoft's, entering an editor, finding and making a change, exiting the
  editor, compiling, linking, and finally executing, will take several minutes
  even on trivial programs. Using Turbo Pascal, inserting a semi-colon (the most
  common error I've found by far), recompiling, etc. takes seconds.

  I learned Pascal on an HP `Chipmunk', where most of the time was spent waiting
for the compiler; entering the program and the cerebral part of debugging, were
almost incidental. Using Turbo Pascal shifts the emphasis radically; now the
time to type the program is dominant, and debugging is almost fun. But the
greatest effect on my programming style, is that I experiment now; the effort
of just getting anything to run is no longer so great that, when done, I have
no interest in fiddling with it to make it better. And I can develop tools for
doing complex global operations on data-bases and text files, in less time
than it would take to do it with even a good editor.

> My experience with Turbo 3.0 (the new 4.0 is a new can of worms) was
> brief and painful, but it still seems to be the Pascal of choice for
> someone like you, especially if your machine has limited memory and
> only one floppy drive.  It's inexpensive, it's got an integral editor,
> it's simple to use, and it caters to people who are still struggling
> with Pascal syntax.
  I'm using a full-up Compaq Deskpro w/ V30 and Hard Disk, and I'm struggling
with APL and SmallTalk.
								Ken Hooper