Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!lion!symtam
From: symtam@lion.uwaterloo.ca (Simon Tam)
Subject: Re: Borland shafts C programmers AGAIN!
Message-ID: <1991Mar30.083246.16450@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1991 08:32:46 GMT
Lines: 29

In article <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu>, cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes:
> From article <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, by altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman):
> > 
> > Plus, there are many things about BC++ that are either incomplete or
> > not included.  Borland has explained this away by saying that they 
> > wanted to go to market as soon as they had something reasonable to sell.
> > 
> 
> Speaking of which, anybody see THEIR Help Compiler yet??????
> 

Ha, I seriously doubt that Borland will ever be able to create a version of
Microsoft's Help Compiler.  This would require that Borland decipher the file
format of .hlp files.  I doubt that Microsoft would ever release this to them
simply because they are licensing the Help Compiler to Borland already and
thus force Borland to use it to round out their development kit.  I think it 
would be a large feat for Borland to be able to development their own help
compiler which is compatible with Windows Help 3.0.

Just out of curiousity, why are you wondering why Borland should come out
with their own compiler?  Is it that people don't like using the Microsoft
Help Compiler?  I know that building a help file is kind of cumbersome and
that an integrated building environment would be much nicer.  What else is
the problem?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lies, damn lies and then there are college lectures."
-anonymous
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------