🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep10.052148.10777@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tom J Parry) writes:
>It strikes me as starnge that given the current size of the Borland C++ 3.1
>compiler package, that there is no source control system.
>

Borland recently bought out Brief (a well known editor).  If they also
bought the rest of Solution Systems' products, that would include a
source control system (Sorcerer's Apprentice?).  Perhaps we can look
forwared to better editors and a scs in their future programming
environments of Pascal and C++.


-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391
When asked his position on euthanasia, our local state rep. responded:
"I support youth all over the world."

pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.052148.10777@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tom J Parry) writes:
>>It strikes me as starnge that given the current size of the Borland C++ 3.1
>>compiler package, that there is no source control system.
>>

>Borland recently bought out Brief (a well known editor).  If they also
>bought the rest of Solution Systems' products, that would include a
>source control system (Sorcerer's Apprentice?).  Perhaps we can look
>forwared to better editors and a scs in their future programming
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>environments of Pascal and C++.

Well, looks like Borland is selling Brief seperately from their programming
packages.  They may do the same with any scs's they may aquire.  Or maybe
they'll add one to the Borland C++ packages to up the ante.

Ryan (tannerr@prism.cs.orst.edu)


>-- 
>Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu
>Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391
>When asked his position on euthanasia, our local state rep. responded:
>"I support youth all over the world."
-- 
Ryan Tanner (tannerr@prism.orst.edu)        Highlander III quote:
                                                   "There can be only FIVE!"

DISCLAIMER:  I don't even know the person!

In article <1992Sep10.052148.10777@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tom J Parry) writes:
>It strikes me as starnge that given the current size of the Borland C++ 3.1
>compiler package, that there is no source control system.
>

I just found out (much to my suprise because we just purchased
it) at a programmer's breakfast with the local rep that Borland
has now aquired Sourcerer's Apprentice from Solution Systems
(the Brief - er, ex-Brief people: Borland owns Brief now as well).

And I thought Computer Associates was bad...

Bob
-- 
Bob Hood    thor@arrakis.denver.co.us     H: 303-980-8392  W: 303-632-2180
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.

In article <1992Sep10.145715.6885@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.052148.10777@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tom J Parry) writes:
>>It strikes me as starnge that given the current size of the Borland C++ 3.1
>>compiler package, that there is no source control system.
>>
>
>Borland recently bought out Brief (a well known editor).  If they also
>bought the rest of Solution Systems' products, that would include a
>source control system (Sorcerer's Apprentice?).  Perhaps we can look
>forwared to better editors and a scs in their future programming
>environments of Pascal and C++.

I just talked to Borland reps at a computer show, and they said Brief for
Windows and Sourcerors Apprentice for Windows will be coming in about 1/2 year
-- 
 _____________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                             |
| "Nuke the unborn gay whales!" |  millerje@cs.colostate.edu  |  Jeff Miller  |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|

In article <1992Sep10.052148.10777@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tom J Parry) writes:
>It strikes me as starnge that given the current size of the Borland C++ 3.1
>compiler package, that there is no source control system.
>
>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.


-- 
 --Jeff Hartung--  	
 Disclaimer: My opinions only, etc., etc., BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!...
 InterNet - hartung@crl.ucsd.edu    	 BITNET - hartung@ucsd
 UUCP - ucsd!crl.ucsd.edu!hartung

In <1601@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> hartung@crl.ucsd.edu (Jeff Hartung) writes:

> In article <1992Sep10.052148.10777@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tom J Parry) writes:
> >It strikes me as starnge that given the current size of the Borland C++ 3.1
> >compiler package, that there is no source control system.
> >
> >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 know that the 386/486 have one-byte opcode prefixes that force the next
opcode, if it would normally be an 8-bit instruction, then to do the right
thing but with 32 bits.  (In "native" 32-bit mode, the same opcode toggles
this to mean the opposite.)  So, you can assemble code *right now* that will
run on 386/486 in normal, icky real mode that can use the full 32-bit
registers.  (I'm not sure how this works with the processor's pointers,
though.)

So how much effort would it take (and how much CPU time would it save!!) to
convert all thoses uses of long (and int!!!) to 32 bit instructions?

Or is this being done already and am I years behind??
-- 
lrwx------   1 aldavi01 emacsstu       9 Jun  6 12:43 .signature -> /dev/null

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!