Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!vice!bobb From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal Subject: Re: Turbo Pascal history Message-ID: <6863@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> Date: 6 Feb 91 20:42:33 GMT References: <1991Feb6.001222.15320@IRO.UMontreal.CA> <29885@usc> Reply-To: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 46 In article <29885@usc> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: >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. Well, that's not the first edition. I know Turbo had a 2.?, and possibly even a 1.?, though that's not for sure. As for the "silly" 64k constraint, the compiler only generated .COM files, so blame the segmented architecture of the 80x88 processor as well as the fact that many computers didn't have more than about 128k of RAM at the time. >4.0 > Units. No 64k constraint. Better overlaying. Wrong again. Overlays were removed in version 4.0 in favor of TPU files to overcome the single code/data segment by producing .EXE files. >5.0 > Integrated Development Environment > debugger available from within environment >5.5 > OOP >6.0 > trash >7.0 > pond slime (windows) Ok, so I might agree with you here about Windows. (No smiley). >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.! Thank you for the unecessary diatribe, but some of us like multi-file editor sessions and Object Oriented Programming. Perhaps you don't agree with all of the changes made to Turbo, but I suggest a week with Microsoft's Quick Pascal to re-orient your perspective. (Again, no smiley intended.) Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM