🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <14JUL93.12564805.0008@tscc.macarthur.uws.EDU.AU>, by Michael Turk <ABMT@musica.macarthur.uws.EDU.AU>:
> WARNING
> =======
> its own sample "HELLO WORLD" first program without dying
> with obscure errors such as "LINKAGE ERROR 3"; that cannot
> run on a standard 486DX with 4M memory is not suitable as a
> teaching or learning tool except in a specialist environment.
> 

Here is my two cents:

I've been with turbo c++ for more than one year and quite comfortable
with it. I started to use MSVC several months ago and fund it is
really good, eg.

1. much more powerful than turbo c++, especially when you compare
   MFC with OWL,
2. has got an IDE which is fully under windows environment, turbo
   c++ has got a less attractive non-windows debugger and you always
   need to switch between the non-windows debugger and windows
   editor etc., I found it is quite disgusting.
3. MSVC provides complete prototyping functions which are not
   provided directly by Turbo C++. You can, of course, use
   PROTOGEN, for example, with Turbo C++ to compansite.

It is fair enough to say that MSVC++ is more complicated than TC++
is, but MSVC++ does provide more powers. If you do a UNIX du under
MSVC directory you will find most of the disk space is taken by
MFC and some other features not provided by TC++. I have managed
to reduce the disk space required by MSVC++ to a bit more than 20MB
by zipping all examples and most of the help files, deleting some
parts which I am not intersted in (eg. tyny/small, med, and comp
memory mode), etc.

As for the memory space, I have a 486DX-33 with 4MB memory, tried
most of the examples coming with MSVC++, and found it's OK for all
of them (including "Hello world" and scribble etc). It seems the
compiler is slower than TC++ (there are a lot of disk/momery swaps
going on) and the code generated is much bigger than that generated
by TC++, but this might be what you should pay for a much better
MFC user interface including a set of printer management menus!

Wilson Wen