Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!oberon!cit-vax!ucla-cs!sonia!khayo
From: khayo@sonia.cs.ucla.edu (Erazm J. Behr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: MacUser compiler comparison
Message-ID: <10870@shemp.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 28 Jan 88 04:16:32 GMT
Sender: root@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: khayo@MATH.ucla.edu (E. Behr))
Lines: 24

Hi; I have a question to those who are familiar with both
Turbo & LS Pascal compilers. In the latest MacUser I saw
an article comparing various Mac compilers (not only Pascal).
As an owner of TP I quickly looked at a table where points were
assigned in several categories, and saw that TP scored pretty
low in all, which is of course clear heresy :-) I know it's
far from being perfect, but:
  it got 3 or 4 out of 5 for "Toolbox access" and something like
3 for "standalone applic."; according to the manual *full* access
to the toolbox is provided (and is easy, in my opinion) and
creating standalone applications is a snap (only the dumb loader
makes small ones big and big ones a little bigger :); what gives?
What does LSC (perfect scores in all categories) have that TP
doesn't in this regard?
  on the other hand, the only category in which TP beat TML is
"listing"; from a quick glance at the accomp. text I gathered this
was about generating x-references etc. If TML's ability to do this
is *worse* than TP's, then I feel *really* sorry for those poor
guys who use TML (I mean, TP's listing is "pure, unadulterated" text
of the program!).
  So, have the scores been assigned randomly, or did the editors
use substances, or what ?              Eric
-----------------------------------------------------------
          >>>>--------------->         khayo@MATH.ucla.edu