GNU Pascal Compiler Released For Mac OS X 77
MacDaffy writes "Kudos to Adriaan Van Os: He has produced a 'second prerelease' of the GNU Pascal compiler for Mac OS X. Work actively proceeds on porting the Carbon Pascal Interfaces for use with it (longtime Macintosh Pascal guru Peter N Lewis has already gotten a great start on this). Thanks to Adriaan, Peter, and Bill Catambay of Pascal Central for helping take Pascal on Macintosh into the future."
What is really wrong with it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why??? (Score:4, Insightful)
MPW I never was able to get into. It had an odd mixture of editor/cli which I never liked. Further it lacked a lot of the nice debugging features that Lightspeed Pascal had. This was *way* back in the 68K days, mind you. Programming was a damn site easier then. Further the initial versions of C for the Mac required lots of resources and never were as nice as Pascal initially. Further even on the PC side Turbo Pascal (which became Delphi) was king.
Where Apple went wrong was never following Borland's lead and pushing their development system more towards RAD. That was true with C/C++. Indeed I think one of the reasons that Apple had troubles in the mid-90's was that it was so much easier to develop software on the PC than the Mac. As computers became more complex they retained the basic approach of the 80's. That's fine and even desirable for some applications. And they did have a framework for MPW and then there was PowerPlant for CodeWarrior. But neither really addressed people who weren't trying to write an application they wanted fine control over. There never was a Delphi for the Mac.
Now we have Interface Builder and Obj-C. However I still think, as nice as those are, that Microsoft with C# and Borland with Delphi/C++ Builder have better RAD tools.
Pascal *sigh* the memories (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone NOT cut their teeth on a Tandy or IBM XT/AT, Turbo Pascal?
What was so great about TurboPascal?
The IDE. Pretty much the first hobbyist compiler package with an IDE. No more "exit editor, compile, get error, edit, compile, run" etc etc
Remember using it for demos? Compiled way faster and smaller than the C compilers did at the time.
Remember Turtle Graphics?
BGI?
Turbo Vision?
Remember using it for BBS doors? FOSSIL drivers?
Back in the early/mid-80's, when TurboPascal first came out, for $49, it rocked the world and made Borland in to a HUGE success.
Re:What is really wrong with it? (Score:2, Insightful)
OO, multithreading, good support for low level access and interfacing to other languages.
It's a pretty easy step to translate Pascal code to Ada (can be done automatically).
Ada is certainly better than C for writing code; probably not as flexible as Objective-C.
Re:Make the OTHER switch (Score:5, Insightful)
C has its place, to be sure. So does Pascal. Neither have much of a place in my toolbox for what I do.
Apple may have lost you as a programmer, and you seem to think that is a huge loss on Apple's part. What killer app did you bring to another platform that they missed out on?
Pascal is junk. Free software forever.
RTFA. The port is of GNU Pascal. Which is free software. It's sad to see so many oSs h4k3rz associate C so closeley with Free software that there is no room for any other languages.
What does C do that Pascal doesn't?