🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CA5rGr.Jv3@world.std.com>, timk@world.std.com (Tim King) writes:
|> Michael Turk <ABMT@musica.macarthur.uws.EDU.AU> writes concerning
|> Microsoft's Visual C++:
|> 
|> >I just installed it and ran into a few problems that indicate that
|> >it may not be suitable for educational use
|> 
|> Spoken as a truly experienced and knowledgable MSVC user.  Exactly how
|> many hours have you logged with this product?

Irrelevant/non sequitur. Someone teaching or in an educational field
does not have to waste his/her time by spending hours and hours
trying to use an off-the-shelf product to determine if it's suitable
for the classroom. If the students can't use it, it's not suitable.
If the sample program doesn't compile on the first try, it's not suitable.

> 
|> 
|> > - except for experienced programmers.
|> > [ comments about memory and disk space requirements deleted ]
|> 
|> How is the amount of storage in one's computer related to how experienced
|> a programmer she is?

All other things being equal, someone working on DOS 1.0 on an XT
with 640K + 2 floppy drives (that can't run windows) won't get as much "experience" as someone working on a 486-DX2 /16MB/300MB HD. Why?
Because one hardware is a subset of the other, and given equal effort
in mastering one environment, mastering the latter means mastering
the former.
An experienced DOS programmer, will never learn windows unless s/he
has a machine powerfule enough to use it.

All other things being equal means "willingness to learn > 0".

|> 
|> 
|> >BUT, in my opinion any environment that cannot build and execute
|> >its own sample "HELLO WORLD"...
|> 
|> If you mean the GENERIC application, you've got a point.  However,
|> I've used MSVC with 4MB RAM and a <4MB swap file to compile some
|> simple applications.  One of these was actually a pretty complex
|> screen saver (as screen savers go), undoubtably more complex than
|> GENERIC.  I really don't know what's inside GENERIC that caused it
|> not to work, but I didn't take the time to figure it out.
|> 

The time to figure it out should be zero because it shouldn't happen.

|> 
|> >with obscure errors such as "LINKAGE ERROR 3";
|> 
|> I got "out of far heap space" or some such thing.  It had a standard
|> error number of the form XNNNN, and it was in the help.  I don't
|> imagine, however, that "LINKAGE ERROR 3" would be in there.  I gather
|> that you didn't get any satisfaction out of Bill's World?  (typical)
|> 
|> 
|> >that cannot run on a standard 486DX with 4M memory is not suitable
|> >as a teaching or learning tool except in a specialist environment.
|> 
|> It depends on what you want to learn.  If it's C++, you can probably
|> put something else together that'll do DOS programs.  But if you
|> want to learn Windows programming in any shape, form, or flavor, I
|> recommend MSVC highly.  It's tightly-integrated and relatively
|> bug-free (as far as I can tell).  I'd say this is one of Microsoft's
|> better products.

If you want to learn C++, use BC++ 3.1
If you want to learn how to debug  commercial software, us MSVC.

|> 
|> As to the question of computer resources:  If you really want to
|> make it easy to learn Windows programming, you may have to dish out
|> a few MB of RAM (oh, no! not that!).  Yes, people, you may actually
|> have to spend $150 or so, a full 10% of the system price, to add
|> another 4MB of RAM.  If the computer is dedicated to MSVC, it can
|> run on a 120MB HD.  (I've used MSVC on an 8MB RAM, 120MB HD system
|> along with a pluther of other apps.)
|> 

Or you can use BC++ 3.1 and not buy more RAM!

|> 
|> >If you are an instructor and considering putting Vis. C++ in your labs
|> >consider the extra memory and complexity.
|> Extra memory doesn't imply extra complexity.  You can write and compile

Extra memory requirements means making checking that a PC has enough
memory everytime you use it (when working on  campus), or going to the
one down the hall because the one you're on can't run MSVC!!

|> DOS programs just as simply with MSVC as with any other environment.
|> Windows development, however, is much easier than with Turbo C++.
|> 
Window development is very easy with BC++ 3.1 and OWL.
-- 

"die,die, damned thread!"
"delete *this"
"I'm 90% done."