Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!uhnix1!moray!urchin!p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org!Bob.Stout
From: Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: ZTC++ 2.10
Message-ID: <23185.265A6F1E@urchin.fidonet.org>
Date: 23 May 90 07:20:36 GMT
Sender: ufgate@urchin.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:106/506.6 - Fulcrum's Edge, Spring TX
Lines: 52

In a message of <May 21 21:02>, Steve Hite (steve@hite386.UUCP ) writes: 

 >I am going to upgrade and I'm also going to "upgrade" from Turbo C 2.0 to 
 >Turbo C++ 1.0 ($125...NICE price) and then I'll post a subjective :-) 
 >comparison to the net in late July.

  I was supposed to have received TC++ last Fri, the 18th, but it has yet to 
arrive. I'm waiting, less than patiently. I'm real anxious to pit VROOMM 
against 2.10 beta's VCM and __handle pointers.

 >  If it's not too late, perhaps, Bob, you could suggest to Zortech 
 >(i.e. Walter, are you listening?) that a key-bindings for Brief 3.0 
 >compatibility be added as well.  I would gamble to say that, in the DOS 
 >world, more professional programmers use Brief than any other EMACS clone.  
 >However, since this product is eventually going over to Unix...EMACS is not 
 >such a bad choice after all.  It beats WordStar :-).  Also, if the editor is
 >"EMACS compatible", does this mean that there is a macro language included 
 >also or just equivalent key-bindings? 

  Brief key bindings have been promised either on BIX or Walter's BBS, but I 
doubt if they'll be in the 2.10 release. Also the EMACS bindings are just that 
- no extension or macro language is supported. It really is pretty nice, but 
certainly not nice enough to temp me away from Epsilon.
  
 >  One last thing...PLEASE put an index in the back of every manual this 
 >time.

  The new manuals are being typeset now and I understand this will be changed 
in 2.10.

 >  That's okay, Bob, your objective opinion is always welcome here. :-)

  Well, it'll be one h*ll of a lot more objective when Borland finally sends me 
the TC++ they promised! <grin & grump>

 >  [Bob (VROOMM = __handle + VCM + hype) Stout] == a satisfied Zortech C++ 
 >customer and beta-tester who has not tried Turbo C++ yet but is already sold
 >on the idea that ZTC++ 2.10 is better. 

  Actually, sight-unseen, I assume TC++ has a slicker (though not necessarily 
"better") user interface and that the C++ version of TD is probably a little 
better than ZDB. You're right in that I expect a refinement of a two-year old 
compiler to produce better code than version 1.0 of anything - especially 
since, for the work I do (important disclaimer - your mileage may vary), ZTC 
has always produced superior code compared with TC. Since I don't use the IDE 
and ZDB is awfully close to being as good as TD, I will be surprised if I don't 
prefer ZTC++ 2.10 to TC++ 1.0, but Borland's always welcome to try and change 
my mind. The biggest prejudices I have against Borland aren't technical, but 
relate to my perceptions of their marketing and their president. Shoot, I 
prefer ZTC to MSC, but after having lived with it for a while now, my opinion 
of MSC 6.0 is a lot higher than some folks I know who aren't known to be 
Zortech partisans as I am.