Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!husc6!endor!siegel
From: siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: THINK C problems followup, suggestions
Message-ID: <2062@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 5 Mar 90 05:38:30 GMT
References: <390@fornax.UUCP> <1990Mar4.194322.27068@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Distribution: na
Organization: Symantec Language Products Group
Lines: 36

In article <1990Mar4.194322.27068@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes:

>contexts, and open them as needed. Why doesn't the same manufacturer do
>all this
>for its C environment? Is this a case of a left and right hand that
>don't talk to
>each other? I can see the attraction of specializing an environment to a
>language
>(not to mention keeping the impementation teams small and manageable), but
>wouldn't it be great if THINK C and Pascal were available out of one
>environment?

	THINK C and THINK Pascal originated as two different environments;
THINK Pascal's roots date back to 1982, and THINK C came along later. The
architectures are fundamentally different, and the designers are fundamentally
different people, which is why the two products look different and act 
different. As time goes on, the two will probably grow together, resulting
in a synthesis, the whole of which is greater than the sum of the parts.

How's that for lots of SAT words? :-)

R.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Rich Siegel
 Staff Software Developer
 Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group
 Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu
 UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel

"When someone who makes four hundred and fifty dollars an hour wants to
tell you something for free, it's a good idea to listen."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~