🚀 go-pugleaf

I have never used Lightspeed Pascal and so I can not speak to MPW
Pascal versus Lightspeed Pascal.  I do use MPW, and would not consider
using any thing less powerful.  First I must admit that I do a lot of
unix programming and Makefiles and scripts do not scare me.  I have
not seen any other system that has all of the functions of MPW.
I do not like using a editor with less features then MPW (even unix
"vi", VMS "edt", pale in comparision EMACS might compete, but I have
never spent the time to learn to use it).

Should very one use MPW? most likely not.  I will admit that I am a
`power user' when it comes to MPW, and can use most of it's features
to my advantage.

The number of MPW features that I use would take a while to list, the
ability to write scripts is there, as is the ability to add commands to
menus, rez is much better then RMaker, MPW also fits my style of
programming, I can mix code between Assembler, C, Modula-2 and Pascal
with out to much effort.  (Product Plug)  I really like the TML
Modula-2 compiler (but then I should I did it), and in a lot of places
I wrote the glue code in assembler and then created a Modula-2 interface
to it (there are some things that are just a pain in a HLL).  The MPW
assembler is the best assembler that I have seen in a long time (not
since the IBM 360/370 assembler G and the PDP-11 Macro-11).

I short I just felt that MPW should have a few cheers from us people
who use it.  (Even if it does not relate to the Light Speed Pascal, vs
MPW Pascal debate).  Thank You Apple for developing MPW.

Bob Campbell

For a while longer (till June 11).
Teltone Corporation		18520 - 66th AVE NE
P.O. Box 657			Seattle, WA 98155
Kirkland, WA 98033

bobc@tikal.teltone.com
{amc,dataio,fluke,hplsla,sunup,uw-beaver}!tikal!bobc
tikal!bobc@beaver.cs.washington.EDU