🚀 go-pugleaf

aldavi01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Arlie Davis) writes:

>In <1601@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> hartung@crl.ucsd.edu (Jeff Hartung) writes:
>
>> parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tom J Parry) writes:
>> >Currently, the full package has every conceivable feature you could want
>> >except source control and OS/2 support [oops, wrong winge]. The only
>
>> And 32-bit code generation, and a DOS extender (32-bit would be nice, 16-bit
>> would be OK, the Phar Lap "Lite" they included with the upgrade was a table
>> scrap, and a shameless example of commercial crippleware), and probably a few
>> other things I can't think of right now.
>
>I'm really surprised that Borland can't generate 32-bit code now.  Or can it?

I heard a *RUMOUR* that a while back, Borland rewrote their code generator
in assembler for speed. Apparently since then (perhaps the people that did
that have now moved on?) it has been a bit of a maintenance problem, and
rewriting it to generate 32-bit code was not going to be a trivial task.

Disclaimer: it was only a rumour! (Maybe someone from Borland is listeninig
and can confirm or deny this?)

-- 
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but 
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!