Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!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: C++ compiler for ms-dos environment
Message-ID: <15474.25EEA1A5@urchin.fidonet.org>
Date: 28 Feb 90 14:56:56 GMT
Sender: ufgate@urchin.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:106/506.6 - Fulcrum's Edge, Spring TX
Lines: 50

In an article of <23 Feb 90 20:02:22 GMT>,  (Sidney Markowitz ) writes:

 >Just to set the record straight, Borland has not announced a release date
 >for a new version of Turbo C, and has not announced any details about any
 >new features in any particular new version.

  As early as last October-November, Borland officials were being quoted by  
name in the popular press that TC 3.0 would include O-O extensions in a  
manner comparable to Turbo Pascal 5.5. These statements were later ammended  
after Borland decided to buy Oregon C++'s technology to implement C++ 2.00  
features in TC 3.0. The target release date has, as you say, never been  
released, but is hardly a secret within the industry.

 >3) even if Bob Stout has some inside information from a beta tester, you 
 >should realize that beta sites are not told when the final product will be 
 >released -- they are just given beta copies to test until the vendor decides 
 >that the product will ship.

  I would never report information based on the hearsay of a single beta  
tester. Besides the normal journalistic standard of verifying your sources,  
it would also make it too easy for a vendor to identify the leak and  
therefore cause him/her problems. My sources in this case include over a half  
dozen beta sites evenly divided between the industrial and journalistic  
community. Fortunately, I'm under no personal restrictions with Borland, so I  
can pass along anything useful yet difficult to trace (see above). The only  
compiler vendor I am under a non-disclosure agreement with is Zortech, about  
whose products I keep my mouth shut and let Walter tell you what he likes.

 >I am similarly skeptical about Bob Stout's claimed knowledge of
 >unnanounced product schedules from MicroSoft, et. al.

  Such is your right - for whatever reasons, I know fewer loose-lipped MS  
beta testers, but the information I have heard tends to be consistent,  
therefore credible. My vulnerability in this matter is less subject to errors  
of reporting, but rather to deliberate programs of disinformation.

 >What *has* been made public is the various DOS language vendor's
 >interest in object-oriented programming languages, and in particular
 >C++. So I'm sure that it is just a matter of time before the major
 >players are in the field. In the mean time, I would like to see less
 >uninformed speculation disguised as hard facts.

  The only exception I take with this is that what I posted was neither  
uninformed nor speculation, but more in the nature of reporting with  
verification from anonymous sources. Other than the previously cited quotes  
from Borland execs stating their intentions of supporting C++ 2.0 with TC 3.0  
(would you like to know the exact compiler switch used to do this?), the only  
announced player is JPI which has been advertising a C++ to be introduced "in  
1990". Microsoft's and Lattice's efforts, while known about, have been less  
publicized - which is, to my way of thinking, to their credit.