[comp.lang.pascal] Turbovision for C?

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.