gcreesor@crocus.waterloo.edu (Glen Reesor) (04/10/91)
I've read reviews in Byte magazine of Turbovision for its Pascal compilers. I want to develop code sporting a windows feel but running on plain DOS. My questions: - is Turbovision easy to use and efficient? - is it standard with Borland's C and C++ compilers? - are there better windowing packages available from other companies? Thanks in advance. Glen Reesor
jerry@gumby.Altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) (04/11/91)
In article <1991Apr9.205403.8394@watdragon.waterloo.edu> gcreesor@crocus.waterloo.edu (Glen Reesor) writes: >I've read reviews in Byte magazine of Turbovision for its Pascal compilers. >I want to develop code sporting a windows feel but running on plain DOS. >My questions: > - is Turbovision easy to use and efficient? No, it is very clumsy to use. If you like LISP, however, you might like TV (lots of nested ()'s). > - is it standard with Borland's C and C++ compilers? No. Nor is it available separately. > - are there better windowing packages available from other companies? Yes, check out Object Professional by TurboPower Software. This package is much easier to use. -- Jerry Gardner, NJ6A Altos Computer Systems UUCP: {sun|pyramid|sco|amdahl|uunet}!altos!jerry 2641 Orchard Parkway Internet: jerry@altos.com San Jose, CA 95134 Help stamp out vi in our lifetime. (408) 432-6200
defaria@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria) (04/13/91)
>/ hpcupt3:comp.lang.pascal / jerry@gumby.Altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) / 10:31 am Apr 10, 1991 / >> - is Turbovision easy to use and efficient? > >No, it is very clumsy to use. If you like LISP, however, you might like >TV (lots of nested ()'s). I haven't used TV a lot but I believe this claim of a *need* for lots of nested ()'s is wrong. True the examples show single function calls with lots of ()'s but you don't *have* to do it that way. For example: WriteLn ("The value is = ", foo (bar (anotherfoo (anotherbar)))); can be writen as: var i : integer; j : integer; k : integer; l : integer; begin i := anotherbar; j := anotherfoo (i); k := bar (j); l := foo (k); WriteLn ("The value is = ", l); It's just that Borland used a style of programming in which function calls were nested and nested, perhap in an attempt to shorten the number of lines in the example. This doesn't mean you have to follow their lead. Often the second method is clearer.