Re: Pascal or whatever for IIgs...

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Mike Westerfield writes ...
> 
> ----------
> In article <37961E95.5CB60510@swbell.net>, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
> wrote:
 ....
> 
> The "Language Package" for ORCA/C and ORCA/Pascal is identical. They share
> the same environment, libraries, debugger, and so forth. Both have
> introductory and toolbox companion courses.

     Which, of course, is the point. The environment and the fact that you must
'learn Toolbox' is the big snag in doing something useful. C or Pascal per se is
not especially hard to learn.



> 
> Sometimes people do want to learn C because it's the language everyone else
> uses. That's fine, I can respect that. It's one part of the overall
> decision. Of course, I wonder why those people ever bought an Apple IIGS
> instead of a Windows machine, but who says people have to apply logical
> arguments consistently? ;)

     It's too bad the people who developed IIgs firmware and extensions never got
around to supplying a commented disassem listing. Everyone would be using Assem or
BASIC plus machine code and CALLs.



> 
> >  You did not mention the new Byte Works IIgs BASIC. I have not tried it, yet;
> >but, BASIC is, certainly, an easy language. What are the limitations on
> >developing GS desktop applications with the new BASIC?
> 
> No, but the discussion centered on C and Pascal. We actually have a fine
> Modula-2 compiler, too. For that matter, some people write desktop programs
> entirely in assembly; we have a great assembler as well. Depending on the
> exact situation, I have recommended each of those languages to various
> people over the years.
 ....

     Okay. So, what are the limitations on developing GS desktop applications with
the new IIgs BASIC?



Rubywand