fleurent@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Charles Fleurent) (02/06/91)
If someone knows about Turbo Pascal history (or has a reference about it), I would like to know what were the significative improvements for each version of Turbo Pascal and the time they were released. For instance, I know that Turbo 5.5 implemented object-oriented programming. What about the earlier versions? If someone has the time to E-mail me a very short answer, I would appreciate it very much. Thanks. -- ____________________________________________________________________________ |Charles Fleurent | | |Universite de Montreal, | Telephone: (514) 343-6111 # 3549 | |Dep. I.R.O., C.P. 6128, succursale A | Fax: (514) 343-2155 |
ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb6.001222.15320@IRO.UMontreal.CA> fleurent@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Charles Fleurent) writes: > > If someone knows about Turbo Pascal history (or has a reference about it), I > would like to know what were the significative improvements for each version > of Turbo Pascal and the time they were released. For instance, I know that > Turbo 5.5 implemented object-oriented programming. What about the earlier > versions? 3.0 the first version I know. One executable, TURBO.COM, 39k, included library--editor--compiler. Pretty awesome, eh? Silly 64k constraint on data and code. No seperate compilation. Terrible overlaying. 4.0 Units. No 64k constraint. Better overlaying. (the climax as far as I'm concerned) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.0 Integrated Development Environment debugger available from within environment 5.5 OOP 6.0 trash 7.0 pond slime (windows) Honestly, why did they go off into flaky stuff???! How about writing a better compiler i.t.o. generating better code? Why not a -O where he compiles slower and emits better code? Why not better hooks for mixing (say) TP and TC? Etc.! -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Ajay Shah, (213)734-3930, ajayshah@usc.edu The more things change, the more they stay insane. _______________________________________________________________________________
bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) (02/07/91)
In article <29885@usc> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: >3.0 > the first version I know. One executable, TURBO.COM, 39k, > included library--editor--compiler. Pretty awesome, eh? > Silly 64k constraint on data and code. No seperate > compilation. Terrible overlaying. Well, that's not the first edition. I know Turbo had a 2.?, and possibly even a 1.?, though that's not for sure. As for the "silly" 64k constraint, the compiler only generated .COM files, so blame the segmented architecture of the 80x88 processor as well as the fact that many computers didn't have more than about 128k of RAM at the time. >4.0 > Units. No 64k constraint. Better overlaying. Wrong again. Overlays were removed in version 4.0 in favor of TPU files to overcome the single code/data segment by producing .EXE files. >5.0 > Integrated Development Environment > debugger available from within environment >5.5 > OOP >6.0 > trash >7.0 > pond slime (windows) Ok, so I might agree with you here about Windows. (No smiley). >Honestly, why did they go off into flaky stuff???! >How about writing a better compiler i.t.o. generating better >code? Why not a -O where he compiles slower and emits better >code? Why not better hooks for mixing (say) TP and TC? Etc.! Thank you for the unecessary diatribe, but some of us like multi-file editor sessions and Object Oriented Programming. Perhaps you don't agree with all of the changes made to Turbo, but I suggest a week with Microsoft's Quick Pascal to re-orient your perspective. (Again, no smiley intended.) Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
ftpam1@acad3.alaska.edu (MUNTS PHILLIP A) (02/07/91)
In article <29885@usc>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes... >In article <1991Feb6.001222.15320@IRO.UMontreal.CA> fleurent@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Charles Fleurent) writes: >> >> If someone knows about Turbo Pascal history (or has a reference about it), I >> would like to know what were the significative improvements for each version >> of Turbo Pascal and the time they were released. For instance, I know that >> Turbo 5.5 implemented object-oriented programming. What about the earlier >> versions? > 1.0 Initial release for Z80 CP/M. Generated fast code in an amazingly short amount of time. This event marked the very zenith of CP/M. I remember a review with a comment something like this: "No, our listed compilation times are not typographical errors!" 2.0 First version for the IBM PC. A quick and dirty port of the CP/M compiler. There was also a revision of the CP/M compiler, but I don't remember the changes. >3.0 > the first version I know. One executable, TURBO.COM, 39k, > included library--editor--compiler. Pretty awesome, eh? > Silly 64k constraint on data and code. No seperate > compilation. Terrible overlaying. > Also included lots of IBM specific goodies, as they were called. Purported to be the only editor or word processor that would run on a stock IBM PC jr. Last revision of the CP/M compiler. >4.0 > Units. No 64k constraint. Better overlaying. > >(the climax as far as I'm concerned) >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >5.0 > Integrated Development Environment > debugger available from within environment > >5.5 > OOP > >6.0 > trash > >7.0 > pond slime (windows) > > >Honestly, why did they go off into flaky stuff???! >How about writing a better compiler i.t.o. generating better >code? Why not a -O where he compiles slower and emits better >code? Why not better hooks for mixing (say) TP and TC? Etc.! > >-- >_______________________________________________________________________________ >Ajay Shah, (213)734-3930, ajayshah@usc.edu > The more things change, the more they stay insane. >_______________________________________________________________________________
CDCKAB%EMUVM1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu ( Karl Brendel) (02/07/91)
In article <1991Feb6.205927.8573@ims.alaska.edu>, ftpam1@acad3.alaska.edu (MUNTS PHILLIP A) wrote: >In article <29885@usc>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes... >>In article <1991Feb6.001222.15320@IRO.UMontreal.CA> fleurent@IRO.UMontreal.CA > (Charles Fleurent) writes: >>> >>> If someone knows about Turbo Pascal history (or has a reference about it), >>> would like to know what were the significative improvements for each version >>> of Turbo Pascal and the time they were released. For instance, I know that >>> Turbo 5.5 implemented object-oriented programming. What about the earlier >>> versions? >> >1.0 Initial release for Z80 CP/M. Generated fast code in an amazingly > short amount of time. This event marked the very zenith of CP/M. > I remember a review with a comment something like this: "No, our > listed compilation times are not typographical errors!" > >2.0 First version for the IBM PC. A quick and dirty port of the CP/M > compiler. There was also a revision of the CP/M compiler, but I > don't remember the changes. [...remainder deleted...] Although 2.0 may have been the first release that had an IBM-specific version, there was a 1.0 release for MS-DOS machines. I still have it and the manual. The 1.0 MS-DOS release ran quite well on IBM PCs. Working on a dual-floppy, 256K PC at that time, I copied the entire TURBO.COM onto many work diskettes in order to use the Turbo editor. +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Karl Brendel Centers for Disease Control | | Internet: CDCKAB@EMUVM1.BITNET Epidemiology Program Office | | Bitnet: CDCKAB@EMUVM1 Atlanta, GA, USA | | Home of Epi Info 5.0 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
dconway@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Dan Conway) (02/08/91)
bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes: >>3.0 >> the first version I know. One executable, TURBO.COM, 39k, >> included library--editor--compiler. Pretty awesome, eh? >> Silly 64k constraint on data and code. No seperate >> compilation. Terrible overlaying. > > Well, that's not the first edition. I know Turbo had a 2.?, and > possibly even a 1.?, though that's not for sure. Version 1.0 did exist, but was for CP/M only. Version 2.0 came out for both CP/M and MS-DOS. It added support for dispose (1.0 had mark and release only). It also added limited graphics support in the MS-DOS version only. I read an article in Dr. Dobb's a few years ago that mentioned that the original compiler was written by a consulting firm in Denmark. > Bob Beauchaine > bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM Dan Conway dconway@hpldsln.sid.hp.com
zlraa@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Ross Alford) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb6.205927.8573@ims.alaska.edu> ftpam1@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >In article <29885@usc>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes... >>In article <1991Feb6.001222.15320@IRO.UMontreal.CA> fleurent@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Charles Fleurent) writes: ... >1.0 Initial release for Z80 CP/M. Generated fast code in an amazingly > short amount of time. This event marked the very zenith of CP/M. > I remember a review with a comment something like this: "No, our > listed compilation times are not typographical errors!" > >2.0 First version for the IBM PC. A quick and dirty port of the CP/M > compiler. There was also a revision of the CP/M compiler, but I > don't remember the changes. > I bought a CP/M version 1.0 with a serial number in the low-five-digit range, so have some idea of the history. You had to have been programming in UCSD Pascal to appreciate the total revolution that Turbo was at the time. The major revision I recall between 1.0 and 2.0 was that 2.0 allowed Dispose() on pointers. Prior to that, only Mark and Release were available for heap management. 2.0 also prettied up the editor--the 1.0 editor lacked commands like ^W, ^Z, ^QE, ^QX. BTW, even though I have since bought MSDOS Turbo, and upgraded that a couple of times, Borland *still* send me upgrade offers based on my original Version 1.0 package. I can tell by the address. Ross Alford zlraa@marlin.jcu.edu.au -- //DUXYZY01 JOB DU.D00.AA1234,ALFORD // EXEC PGM=IEBCOPY //OUT DD DSN=DU.E26.AC4672.Z11.ALFORD.OLDLIB, // DISP=(NEW,CATLG),SPACE=(TRK,(10,,10),RLSE),UNIT=DISK,VOL=SER=DUK333 ... ACK!
wilker@gauss.math.purdue.edu (Clarence Wilkerson) (02/08/91)
I have to second the bombshell effect that Turbo Pascal for CP/M had. People had been burned by a buggy slow-to-be-delivered JRT PASCAL, and when Turbo Pascal came out it was not believed at first. I had struggled with UCSD Pascal on a Heath 89. Besides the slowness of the product, hardware devices were impossible to add on if not supported in the release you bought. I painfully dis-assembled the p-code interpreter and separated it from the hardware support to produce a version that ran off the CP/M bios, and thus could be adapted to different disk drives. Shortly after the end of this grand achievement, Turbo Pascal came out and made it all moot! Even on the PC, the difference in programming ease between Turbo and Microsoft Pascal was striking. My estimate of one colleague's skills went up several notches when he told me that he had produced a running program under MS Pascal in under two weeks. Clarence Wilkerson
andrew@resam.dk (Leif Andrew Rump) (02/11/91)
In <27710002@hpldsla.sid.hp.com> dconway@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Dan Conway) writes: > I read an article in Dr. Dobb's a few years ago that >mentioned that the original compiler was written by a consulting firm in >Denmark. NOTE: This may be folklore or just my bad decaying (core) memory :-) Anders Heiselberg (sp?) (now working for Borland International) created PolyPascal in Denmark as an exam project. Evil tongues say that Turbo= Pascal was PolyPascal with a menu system instead of a (better) command= line interface. PolyPascal and TurboPascal co-existed for a long time (PP didn't follow TP in the race of introducing new (buggy) procedures and functions - instead PolyData(?) created files like database manager that could be included in the same spirit as unit's today). Development on PP stopped when TP4 was introduced. I think Anders was brought to the states at that time and he (I don't know if he is the one that should receive the credits?!?) introduced the lovely unit idea and removed all the bugs from TP - Thanks! Leif Andrew Leif Andrew Rump, AmbraSoft A/S, Stroedamvej 50, DK-2100 Copenhagen OE, Denmark UUCP: andrew@ambra.dk, phone: +45 39 27 11 77 / Currently at Scandinavian Airline Systems =======/ UUCP: andrew@resam.dk, phone: +45 32 32 51 54 \ SAS, RESAM Project Office, CPHML-V, P.O.BOX 150, DK-2770 Kastrup, Denmark > > Read oe as: o <backspace> / (slash) and OE as O <backspace> / (slash) < <
dc@sci.UUCP (D. C. Sessions) (02/16/91)
In article <1991Feb11.084634.21730@resam.dk> andrew@resam.dk (Leif Andrew Rump) writes: >Development on PP stopped when TP4 was introduced. I think Anders was >brought to the states at that time and he (I don't know if he is the >one that should receive the credits?!?) introduced the lovely unit >idea and removed all the bugs from TP - Thanks! > >Leif Andrew 'Fraid not. UNITS were an integral part of UCSD Pascal back in the '70s. A feature that TP still hasn't adapted is the SEGMENT UNIT, which provides completely integrated swapping. As it happens, the 80x86 environment (esp. in protected mode) is so well suited to this approach that I still don't see why Borland hasn't added it *en passant*. -- | The above opinions may not be original, but they are mine and mine alone. | | "While it may not be for you to complete the task, | | neither are you free to refrain from it." | +-=-=- (I wish this _was_ original!) D. C. Sessions -=-=-+
ephram@violet.berkeley.edu (Ephram Cohen) (02/21/91)
A number of people asserted that Version 1.0 was for CP/M only. Well it was not. I own it and the compilert ran on CP/M 80, CP/M86 and MS-DOS. There were versions of each compiler for each arcitecture and you had to order it that way. There was also an 8087 specific version of the compiler and yopu got both (emulation and 8087) when you ordered the more expensive 87 version. The manual states that the complete compiler and all suport files took up 27K of disk space. Not bad, Not bad at all. We must prevent those commies from compromising the integrity of our precious bodily fluids. -Gen. Jack D. Ripper Ephram Cohen ephram@violet.berkeley.edu 466 44th St. #1 3210 Tolman Hall Oakland, CA 94609 Berkeley, CA 94720
ephram@violet.berkeley.edu (Ephram Cohen) (02/21/91)
In article <1991Feb20.234821.19546@agate.berkeley.edu> ephram@violet.berkeley.edu (Ephram Cohen) writes: > There was also an 8087 specific version of the >compiler and yopu got both (emulation and 8087) when you ordered the >more expensive 87 version. Sorry about the mis-info. The 8087 version came out with version 2 We must prevent those commies from compromising the integrity of our precious bodily fluids. -Gen. Jack D. Ripper Ephram Cohen ephram@violet.berkeley.edu 466 44th St. #1 3210 Tolman Hall Oakland, CA 94609 Berkeley, CA 94720