Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtuni!bcn
From: bcn@mtuni.UUCP (Bernice Neuman)
Newsgroups: net.lang.pascal,net.micro,net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: Re: Turbo Pascal - The Next Version!  What? How much? When?
Message-ID: <258@mtuni.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Jun-86 16:36:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtuni.258
Posted: Tue Jun 17 16:36:33 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Jun-86 07:32:20 EDT
References: <9779@ritcv.UUCP> <7301@duke.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA
Lines: 47
Xref: watmath net.lang.pascal:569 net.micro:14843 net.micro.pc:8709

> In article <9779@ritcv.UUCP> iav1917@ritcv.UUCP (alan i. vymetalik) writes:
> >
> >   I am interested in finding out any information anyone knows
> >   regarding the upcoming release of Borland's Turbo Pascal V4.0.
> 
>     
>     I've heard rumors that Borland was developing new compilers for C, 
>     and Modula-II as well as Pascal.  I first heard this about the end 
>     last summer.  More recently, (with the announcement of Turbo Prolog)
>     I've heard that these compilers were put on the backburner to allow
>     the release of the Prolog system.  (I'm not sure whether this was due
>     a reorganization of manpower or (more likely) a marketing ploy to
>     prevent oversaturation of the market (too many products introduced 
>     at one time) - I've heard rumors that release of a new sidekick was
>     put off for exactly this latter reason)  
> 
> 
>     As far as I can remember, the new compilers should cover most of 
>     your wishes (i.e. optimization, OBJ files, large memory models - 
>     not sure about large file I/O but if there is .OBJ support you can 
>     build your own routines and link them in.)  It seems that all of
>     the new compilers share the same core program (i.e. the interface
>     used in Prolog with the multiple windows).
> 
> 
>     What I would like to know is:
>      
>       Have the people at Borland included a program developmenmt
>       environment to their compilers OR at least allow compilation
>       to be invoked at the DOS command prompt level like most other
>       compilers (i.e. A> turbo program1)?
>        |
>        |----> Read this paragraph as allows a "MAKE" facility
> 
> 
>     Also, can anyone backup (or refute) these rumors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Eric A. Raymond                                   UUCP: ...decvax!mcnc!duke!ear