I'm looking to start coding for classic Macs, and a lot of thing's I've read have led me to believe that Pascal is the best way to program for classic Macs. Many things I've read have also said that Think Pascal was THE implementation of Pascal to use, especially since I only care about 68K. Anyway, the final version of Think Pascal was apparently released as freeware back when it was "abandoned", but Symantec has since removed it from its website. Does anyone know of a place where this can still be downloaded or have any alternative recommendations. Was CodeWarrior's Pascal any good? I know it was fast, but there's some talk about it not being as friendly and producing more bloated code... Any suggestions along either track would be MUCH appreciated.
-
Hello MLAers! We've re-enabled auto-approval for accounts. If you are still waiting on account approval, please check this thread for more information.
Think Pascal 4.5
- Thread starter madcrow
- Start date
Then you have been misguided. Although the Macs were originally developed using a combination of 68k assembler and pascal, overtime C and C++ became the languages of choice. Even things like MacTCP and Communications Toolbox adopted many C programming conventions.
You will get better milage from using C eg THINK C5.0, and also have access to a larger store of sample code.
If you want an current example of code written for System 6 then have a look at the http://68kmla.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6767 thread for a download.
The Inside Macintosh series are the place to start and there are consistent rules on converting a Pascal definition to a C defintion.
What sort of application do you intend writing? I've never used Pascal seriously, but I am impressed by its accessibility to novice programmers and, of course, it is well supported on Mac OS. However the string handling sucks in all of the Mac versions that I have seen.
There have been some good threads here previously about "which language" so do a search. Remember, though, that the "best" language will depend on the nature of your software and the target Mac OS version. Think/Symantec C is the best all rounder, but the learning curve is high. RealBasic is brilliant for quick and dirty utilities for a 68030 or faster.
I have copies of the freely distributed Think Pascal, so PM for them.
There have been some good threads here previously about "which language" so do a search. Remember, though, that the "best" language will depend on the nature of your software and the target Mac OS version. Think/Symantec C is the best all rounder, but the learning curve is high. RealBasic is brilliant for quick and dirty utilities for a 68030 or faster.
I have copies of the freely distributed Think Pascal, so PM for them.
Peter Lewis has published a lot of good Pascal modules and foundations. And you can't knock his vintage Mac software...
Think Pascal is available from pascal-central.com. Also, if you Google for "think pascal", you'll get a link to Ingemar's page with instructions to install the patch necessary to run on more recent versions of MacOS.
I'm developing a compiler using Think Pascal, running under MacOS 10.4, even though I have Delphi and FreePascal available (and a PC to run them on). IMO Think Pascal is the ultimate IDE, which all others should aspire to beat. It has debugging tools integrated completely in the environment, with features I've never seen elsewhere. OTOH, if you're really picky about editors then you'll be disappointed. The editor is primitive compared to almost anything available today.
I'm developing a compiler using Think Pascal, running under MacOS 10.4, even though I have Delphi and FreePascal available (and a PC to run them on). IMO Think Pascal is the ultimate IDE, which all others should aspire to beat. It has debugging tools integrated completely in the environment, with features I've never seen elsewhere. OTOH, if you're really picky about editors then you'll be disappointed. The editor is primitive compared to almost anything available today.
I have always liked Pascal. The language can be represented in BNF in a page or two. I have never seen C represented in BNF, but friends who have developed compilers said that it is hairy. That makes a language much more difficult to master, and the programmer is much more prone to making errors.
In terms of IDEs, I think that many of the older languages got things right (including THINK and Borland). Back then, IDEs were truly integrated. Modern IDEs don't feel very integrated. Indeed, the typical case with modern IDEs seems to be that the "IDE" is little more than a front end for disparate utilities. Granted, I don't recall the THINK Pascal debugger being all that great.
With respect to how primitive the editor was in THINK Pascal, well, I liked it. I am very much a person who believe that a software tool should have the necessary features, and not a single one more. That is to say that a C editor should be a C editor, and not a Pascal editor (never mind a LaTeX editor). While Pascal and C are very similar langauges, they never the less have their own quirks and their own philosopies for editing and presentation. Never mind something that is radically different, like stack based languages (such as forth), or something intended for typesetting (like LaTeX). So, in my mind, the THINK Pascal IDE strikes a good balance.
In terms of IDEs, I think that many of the older languages got things right (including THINK and Borland). Back then, IDEs were truly integrated. Modern IDEs don't feel very integrated. Indeed, the typical case with modern IDEs seems to be that the "IDE" is little more than a front end for disparate utilities. Granted, I don't recall the THINK Pascal debugger being all that great.
With respect to how primitive the editor was in THINK Pascal, well, I liked it. I am very much a person who believe that a software tool should have the necessary features, and not a single one more. That is to say that a C editor should be a C editor, and not a Pascal editor (never mind a LaTeX editor). While Pascal and C are very similar langauges, they never the less have their own quirks and their own philosopies for editing and presentation. Never mind something that is radically different, like stack based languages (such as forth), or something intended for typesetting (like LaTeX). So, in my mind, the THINK Pascal IDE strikes a good balance.
Hi,
I learnt to program with Think Pascal, I still love it now! I moved onto Think C around the release of System 7, the writing was on the wall for Pascal.
Something to get if you can find it, is Think Reference, which will give you a good guide to accessing the toolbox in either Pascal or C, another very useful app!
P.
I learnt to program with Think Pascal, I still love it now! I moved onto Think C around the release of System 7, the writing was on the wall for Pascal.
Something to get if you can find it, is Think Reference, which will give you a good guide to accessing the toolbox in either Pascal or C, another very useful app!
P.
Let Mac Hut be your friend:
Think Reference 2.0:
http://www.valleyofthelights.com/jcoventry/machut/files/programming/symantec/THINK%20Reference%202.0.sit
Various versions of Think Pascal:
http://www.valleyofthelights.com/jcoventry/machut/files/programming/symantec/THINK%20Pascal/
Think Reference 2.0:
http://www.valleyofthelights.com/jcoventry/machut/files/programming/symantec/THINK%20Reference%202.0.sit
Various versions of Think Pascal:
http://www.valleyofthelights.com/jcoventry/machut/files/programming/symantec/THINK%20Pascal/
Similar threads
