Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!acad3.alaska.edu!ftpam1
From: ftpam1@acad3.alaska.edu (MUNTS PHILLIP A)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal
Subject: Re: Turbo Pascal history
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.205927.8573@ims.alaska.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 91 20:59:27 GMT
References: <1991Feb6.001222.15320@IRO.UMontreal.CA> <29885@usc>
Sender: usenet@ims.alaska.edu (J Random USENET)
Reply-To: ftpam1@acad3.alaska.edu
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Lines: 58
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu

In article <29885@usc>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes...
>In article <1991Feb6.001222.15320@IRO.UMontreal.CA> fleurent@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Charles Fleurent) writes:
>>
>>  If someone knows about Turbo Pascal history (or has a reference about it), I 
>> would like to know what were the significative improvements for each version
>> of Turbo Pascal and the time they were released. For instance, I know that 
>> Turbo 5.5 implemented object-oriented programming. What about the earlier 
>> versions?
>
1.0     Initial release for Z80 CP/M.  Generated fast code in an amazingly
        short amount of time.  This event marked the very zenith of CP/M.
        I remember a review with a comment something like this:  "No, our
        listed compilation times are not typographical errors!"

2.0     First version for the IBM PC.  A quick and dirty port of the CP/M
        compiler.  There was also a revision of the CP/M compiler, but I
        don't remember the changes.

>3.0
>	the first version I know.  One executable, TURBO.COM, 39k,
>	included library--editor--compiler.  Pretty awesome, eh?
>	Silly 64k constraint on data and code. No seperate
>	compilation.  Terrible overlaying.
>
        Also included lots of IBM specific goodies, as they were called.
        Purported to be the only editor or word processor that would run
        on a stock IBM PC jr.  Last revision of the CP/M compiler.

>4.0
>	Units.  No 64k constraint.  Better overlaying.
> 
>(the climax as far as I'm concerned)
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>5.0
>	Integrated Development Environment
>	debugger available from within environment
> 
>5.5
>	OOP
> 
>6.0
>	trash
> 
>7.0
>	pond slime (windows)
> 
> 
>Honestly, why did they go off into flaky stuff???!
>How about writing a better compiler i.t.o. generating better
>code?  Why not a -O where he compiles slower and emits better
>code?  Why not better hooks for mixing (say) TP and TC?  Etc.!
> 
>-- 
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Ajay Shah, (213)734-3930, ajayshah@usc.edu
>                              The more things change, the more they stay insane.
>_______________________________________________________________________________