Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpvcfs1!neff
From: neff@hpvcfs1.HP.COM (Dave Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Pascal : why does it still exist ?
Message-ID: <670002@hpvcfs1.HP.COM>
Date: 2 Feb 89 20:39:21 GMT
References: <2528@nunki.usc.edu>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA
Lines: 25

Microsoft has been periodically updating their Pascal, but at a painfully
slow rate.  Early last summer they finally had a version that supported
OS/2 and more importantly FINALLY used all of memory for symbol tables.
Previously, the symbol table had to fit in the 64K data segment, although
it did have 32 bit pointers to symbols outside of the data segment.  This
meant the compiler didn't really use all of memory, and in my experience
adding memory greater than about 300K did not matter.  I never bought
the upgrade since I long stopped using their compiler.

Obviously their Pascal support and interest is minor at this time. C and
Quick basic is "where the action is".  Perhaps the only advantage of
Microsoft Pascal (now that Turbo finally supports big programs) is the
fact that a compatable Xenix version exists.  In fact, if I recall 
correctly, the object code generated by the PC Pascal compiler is
compatable with object code on the Xenix version.  So if you really
like Pascal and are developing code for DOS and Xenix their compiler
does make sense.

I gave up on Microsoft Pascal about 2 years ago.  I liked allot of things
about it but its non-portable extentions were too useful to ignore, but
resulted in non-portable code.  Its C for me from now on until something
better (probably C++) comes along.

Dave Neff
att!hpfcla!hpvcla!neff