🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan26.190643.1955@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU> jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.145202.29118@fwi.uva.nl> wijkstra@fwi.uva.nl (Marcel Wijkstra (AIO)) writes:

< stuff deleted >

>>I am used to Turbo Pascal (5.5), so I am slightly biased towards Borland
>>since I already know its user interface. But I've heard it's HUGE (>30Mb).
>>Furthermore, I don't think I am going to use C++ (at least, not yet), just
>>plain C. But if you think I should, let me know as well...
>
>I'm moving to C++....not just because of the hype, either...memory
>management is easier and cleaner, for one reason.
>

Well, I suppose, for those who do not want to deal with the
malloc() family, it yields less function calls, but memory
management is not cleaner under C++ by any stretch of the
imagination. Sure, NEW and ~(destructor) are conviences, but the
underlying code for DOS is not pretty. Also, you still have to
declare your destructor, or explicity destroy the class object. SO,
C++ does not really buy a whole lot. One last point. Under C++
closure is not achieved, so if you are developing real time data
aquisition software, you might as wear a blindfold and throw darts
at the target. It's just as effective.

>>Furthermore, what's the main diff between 'Borland' stuff and 'Turbo' stuff?
>
>Borland versions include everything and the kitchen sink, as the saying
>goes.  Library source, Turbo Debugger, Turbo Assembler, Windows and
>DOS support and possbly the applications frameworks (C++ stuff).  You may 
>be able to get the frameworks for Tc++, but I'm not sure. 
>

The Borland versions do contain all the published tools for C/C++.
You can order the Applications Framework separately, but your
better off buying the whole thing if you think you will need it.
It's cheaper that way.

>I'm not sure if TC++ comes in a windows and a DOS version or not, but BC++
>comes with both. 
>
>I would say that if you are writing large, complex programs, then get the 
>BC++ package.  If not, get the Tc++ package.  I, too, am partial to
>Borland.  I can't comment on the other packages, but I've been happy with
>the Borland products for a number of years now.
>
>Jeff
>-- 

Borland does have a very stable product. There have been very few
gotchas that I have found over the last 5 or 6 years since Turbo C
1.0; especially since Borland C/C++ 2.0. I would recommend it. It
does support many of the UNIX calls syntactically, and this is an
added bonus in my book.

Version 3.1 is the first in the line of compilers to contain
optimizations. One of the "hidden" features of this compiler is the
-3 option for the command line compiler. This flag generates 386
code, and it does make a distinct difference in execution for some
things. I suspect the next round of C/C++ to contain 386/486
generated code, since TASM 3.0 now does both as well.

The optimizers are pretty good. Loop unrolling is as good or better
than Microsoft's. All in all, I think you will find it a package
that is well worth the investment.

...Paul


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------