Dave wrote:Are C1 PASCAL and Metacomco Pascal (with the ROM dongle) comparable?
From a language view, yes - All tree implement a somewhat standard Pascal with similar language features, although the QL-specific implementations differ a bit.
The main difference is that C1 Pascal is not what I would call a true compiler - It compiles to intermediate code and uses a virtual machine implementation to run that intermediate code - Somewhat like what Java does nowadays. You can
produce stand-alone programs, though, in this case, the compiler binds the runtime environment into your executable.
Another difference is that C1 Pascal comes with a menu-driven development environment. You can edit, compile and run Pascal programs from one single program, something you would first need to set up with the other compilers.
Opposed to that, both Metacomco and Prospero compilers produce real 68k machine code in Sinclair relocatable file format, so you can combine Pascal and assembler (or, whatever) code using the linkers. Even if both of the compilers came with a ROM originally, the main differences between Metacomco and Prospero is that M uses the ROM for copyright protection only (and has thus part of the compiler in there), while P has put the runtime library for both Pascal and Fortran into the ROM. P does, however, come with a distributable runtime library in a file - But the compiler wouldn't run with that.