Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!bmwrkshp
From: bmwrkshp@watserv1.waterloo.edu ( Wrkshp Id - Sys Design )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Think against MPW interface war (was Re: MPW wish list)
Summary: I agree
Message-ID: <1046@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 90 20:32:20 GMT
References: <3689@accuvax.nwu.edu> <14112@reed.UUCP>
Reply-To: bmwrkshp@watserv1.waterloo.edu ( Wrkshp Id - Sys Design )
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 36

In article <14112@reed.UUCP> bowman@reed.UUCP (Eric Bowman) writes:
>I whole heartedly agree.  Prepare for flames, though.
>
[Stuff deleted about power of Unix and MPW]
>
>Personally, I depend frequently on MPW's tool and scripting ability, and
>I can't imagine the ordeal of performing some of the same tasks I perform
>regularly in MPW in Think C.

Me, too.

>
>Further, I haven't noticed *that* big a difference in speed when headers
>are compiled (though linking is a little slow).

I have. I've had modules that used to take a minute to compile,
end up taking only 20 seconds to compile. With MPW that's a 
big difference. But I'm sure THINK C is still an order of magnitude
faster. Don't know what that linker is doing. Sure takes its own
sweet time even on Mac II's.

I would probably use MPW 99% of the time if it weren't for the fact
that the C compiler is broken. Even the updated C compiler
included with the C++ package still has bugs.

Real world case I can talk about: I tried compiling Nethack 3
under MPW C. The compiler couldn't even get past the
header files (tested with both original 3.0 and 3.1  beta C compilers).

But for text file manipulation on the Mac, you can't do much
better than MPW.

Johnny Lee
jlee4@orchid.waterloo.edu
bmwrkshp@watserv1.waterloo.edu