Re: Is it too hard to program for the Apple?

[DaveSchmenk <dschmenk@gmail.com>]

On Feb 21, 3:49 pm, Warren Ernst <wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It was mentioned earlier that some of the IIGS development tools/
> languages were intentionally crippled in order not to compete, though
> with what makes me wonder.
>
> So, can someone explain to me what's intentionally crippled about
> Micol Advanced Basic 4 for the GS or Complete Pascal 2.0?
>
> Though I never really did anything special, I was always amazed by the
> editing environment of Beagle's Program Writer was able to provide.,
> Between it, The Beagle Compiler, and then thanks to all those old
> Beagle Classics, I still am amazed at what was possible in AppleSoft.
>
> Now I'm sort of getting the itch to fire up Shape Mechanic and start
> noodling again...
>
> -Warr

Instant Pascal was a //e & //c environment, not really a IIgs.  It was
crippled so that it didn't compete with the Apple Pascal system or the
Macintosh development system written by the same company.  I can't
imagine at that stage of the Apple II lifespan that there could have
been any true competition.  But nevertheless, it was an intriguing
environment.  The fact that it didn't compile to an executable, but
tokenized and interpreted the code was probably what I found most
interesting.  I think they targeted it as a learning environment but
it was so limited in its ability to link to existing modules that it
wasn't much good except for the most trivial of programs.

And I agree that a nice solid editor that integrates with a compiler
is hard to beat.  If only AppleSoft had been slightly more
structured...

Dave...

Dave...