🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4228@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, ee154aby@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Grobbins) writes:
> 
> Everything requires memory.  Big deal.  Lightspeed Pascal is under
> 300K, offers great debugging facilities, and runs quite nicely
> on a plain Mac+.
> 
LSC isn't noticeably larger than LSP, but they did things right.  They run
under MultiFinder (in fact, using the debugger requires MF), whereas the
Pascal product crashes and burns the machine and occasionally the disk if you
try to run under MultiFinder.  Because of this, the current LSP release is not
really compatible with current System software and will only become less
compatible as time goes on and the System software gets closer to real
multitasking.  LSC, on the other hand, is compatible and will be very likely
to stay that way.

> If LSC 3.0 really does need more than a meg for source level debugging,
> then it better be as far advanced of earlier versions as, say, LSP
> is of UCSD Pascal for the Apple II.
> 
It is possible to run in 1MB under MF by reducing the application's requested
size from 700K to 400K and the debugger's from 400 to 200 and to use a Finder
substitute in place of Finder.  The problem with this "solution" is that it
limits the size of the things you can write, compile, and test.  For this
reason, Symantec/Think said that 2MB is required to use the debugger.  As far
as the degree of advancement goes, it is probably a matter of opinion as to
whether your criteria are met (subjective matter), but my opinion is that you
will be satisfied.  BTW, LSP does not satisfy me because 1) I HATE the editor
2) I run on a Mac II and a Prodigy and it still doesn't work quite right on a
68020 box, and 3) it is completely and totally incompatible with MultiFinder
which is the only viable solution for someone who feels as I do about their
editor.

Dennis Cohen
Ashton-Tate Macintosh Division
dBASE Mac Development Team
--------------------------
Disclaimer:  Any opinions expressed above are _MINE_!