Re: pascal system

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606031444450.23340@dosius.ath.cx>,
Lyrical Nanoha  <lyricalnanoha@dosius.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Paul Schlyter wrote:
> 
>> In article <kNOdnWuedvOlOR3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> Alex Freed  <alexf@mirrow.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes - an implementation of UCSD Pascal was integrated in the Apple Pascal
>>>> system.  It was a compiler, IDE, OS, file system -- all integrated.
>>>
>>> IMHO "bundled" is a better term than "integrated". Now the Turbo Pascal
>>> was integrated. Just like modern development environments with combined
>>> editor and compiler.
>>>
>>> UCSD Pascal just came with its own OS and incompatible filesystem.
>>
>> True --- Turbo Pascal didn't integrate its own OS, which was a clear
>> advantage.  To summarize: Turbo Pascal was better than Apple Pascal in
>> almost every respect.  Anyone who can think of even one advantage
>> Apple Pascal had over Turbo Pascal?
> 
> You didn't need a Z80 daughtercard to use it.
> 
> -uso.

....but you needed the language daughercard to use it.  Turbo Pascal
ran without the language card.

Btw Turbo Pascal didn't merely run on Apple II's -- it ran on any Z80
equipped CP/M-80-machines (unfortunately this excluded most CP/M-80
machines, which were 8080 based -- otoh TP then became more compact).
And it also ran on CP/M-86, MS-DOS and PC-DOS.  For awhile there was
even a Macintosh version of TP.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Grev Turegatan 40,  SE-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW:     http://stjarnhimlen.se/