🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <grendel.702658219@harry.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> grendel@cis.ksu.edu (Stephen Spencer ) writes:
..stuff about Windows NT deleted...
>Sorry, but if I can't sit down with MASM and put together a simple (or complex)
>program for Windows together, then there's a problem.  As a students I can't
>afford to buy the developer's addition for Windows just for the libraries
>and the various other linkage necessary.  I find it odd (and will probably not
>find it at all in future versions) that MASM 6.0 has the capability to 
>assemble object code for OS/2 (from what I understand it only takes a quick
>pass through OS/2's linker to create a relatively neat 32-bit binary) but
>makes no effort to allow for Windows development.  Its all very tight and
>neat, I suppose, for the end user, but if future software engineers are able 
>to participate in lower-cost platforms (that are just as capable), what will
>future software be developed under?
>

You could go the Borland route and get either TurboC++ for Windows or
Turbo Pascal for Windows.  Either can be had for < $150.  I like
to consider myself a fairly competent programmer, but I'd *never* 
try to program windows under assemble.  Geesh, it's hard enough under
C.

On a related note, I recently read that Microsoft's compiler products
will no longer support OS/2.  Sigh...
--
McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com     Computers are like Old Testament gods;
Me? Speak for Compaq?  Yeah, right.   lots of rules and no mercy.
                                                             Joseph Campbell