🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <ONEEL.91Mar2115359@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, by oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ):
> So, a second look at BC++ 2.0 a few days after I got it.  I got it to
> do windows programming.  Other attributes aren't useful to me now.
> 
I agree.  Time for a second look, particurlarly since i pseudo-flamed
Borland in my first look.  Second look looks better.  I have converted
a rather large program from C to C++ (I wrote C a lot like C++ in order
to facilitate this early in the design).  Borland C++ has done an excellent
job.  I have to admit once again that I am NOT it awe at this package.
Its just another tool, probably not worth all the articles its getting.
Its a good package, but I still think the SDK is required, that is unless
someone will tell me how to use the Borland Help Compiler.  I haven't
found one.  On the speed of compiles??  I think I was wrong earlier, its
still screams.  It was the windows.h file that slowed things.  I should have
expected MickeySoft to slow Borland.  Such is life.  Parting comments:
Good stuff for $110 (shipping counts) upgrade or $260 for the package for
smart buyers (get the earlier version and upgrade).  Wish list:  PLEASE
MAKE 32 BIT CODE!!!!!  I Can't stand much more of MicroWay C++.

					Tom Hite