🚀 go-pugleaf

Tom Hollander (tholland@pcug.org.au) wrote:
>If anyone is using GPM Modula-2 (PC) and is frustrated by the
>absence of an interface, I am selling a product *extremely*
>cheap called :-) GPM.

Just curious - what made you choose Windows as the platform?
From what I've seen, the major successes in terms of the
"integrated environment" approach to PC compilers have been
those that run from DOS.  I recall that the Borland C users
screamed long and hard when Borland brought out a version that
required Windows as a prerequisite.  (I was reading the C
newsgroup for a while, and there were lots of requests from
people who wanted either to "upgrade" to an older version of
Borland C, or to switch to another supplier.)  Now we're seeing
the likelihood of a similar threat from TopSpeed, and I predict
that many TopSpeed users will choose to stick with their old
version of the compiler.

I find the interfaces of things like TopSpeed and Turbo Pascal
attractive and easy to use.  Trying to run similar things under
Windows is a real pain in the neck.  GPM is unattractive because
of its Unix-like user interface, but I think I'd find a
Windows-like interface almost equally unattractive.  I've recently
started using a new word processor (Scientific Word); and,
although it has some very nice features, it drives me up the wall
to have to fire up Windows each time I want to use it.

OK, so I have a bias against Windows.  But it seems to me that
many programmers - as distinct from casual computer users - have
a similar bias; and, when marketing a compiler or compiler
interface, the only people you're targetting are programmers.

--
Peter Moylan                       peter@ee.newcastle.edu.au
                           file://ee.newcastle.edu.au/pub/www/Moylan.html