Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!husc6!endor!singer From: singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Lightspeed Pascal Keywords: Lightspeed Pascal Symantec THINK Message-ID: <557@husc6.harvard.edu> Date: 8 Nov 88 14:24:26 GMT References: <3f88979c.59b7@sauron.engin.umich.edu> Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Reply-To: singer@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) Organization: Symantec/THINK Technologies, Bedford, MA Lines: 50 Please pardon in advance any flames that I emit in the course of this posting. In article <3f88979c.59b7@sauron.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (Steven James Bollinger) writes: >Much to my surprise, instead of a library, I garnered an error message. >'Files which contain computed references can not be converted.' this surprised >me because the Black and White version had converted succesfully. The color The fact that one program converts and one doesn't means nothing. The reason that the Lightspeed Pascal .O converter cannot convert the aforementioned .O file is due to the design of the Lightspeed Pascal linker, which doesn't support computed references. The LightspeedC linker, which is of newer design, does so, as far as I am aware. > It really surprises me that I continue to stick with a company which >constantly hangs its Pascal customers out to dry in favor of c programmers. Frankly, this is a patently unfair statement. We ofer no favor towards users of either language. It is true that upgrade patches and so forth have been more abundantfor C than they have for Pascal, but this does not mean that we hate Pascal programmers, or that we love C programmers, or that we're trying to hang anyone out to dry. With respect to Pascal, we have not been idle, and I resent any implication to the contrary (since I am one of these non-idle programmers). It was our decision to concentrate our effort on producing Lightspeed Pascal 2.0, which is superior in all respects to competing products, AND to version 1.11 rather than delay version 2 for the sake of providing intermediate patches. I feel competent to say the above because (1) I am involved with the new version of Pascal, and (2) I am a Pascal programmer. >updates than LS Pascal has. I suppose this will be rectified in LS Pascal >2.0, but I have long since given up belief in its existence. Besides, good Assuming that you've filed your upgrade form, you'll have version 2 in your hands extremely soon. (Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to say when until it happens, but when I can say more, I will.) --Rich Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: singer@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!singer Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305 Any opinions stated in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of Symantec Corporation or its employees.