ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (01/09/91)
8. ***** Q: Should I upgrade my Turbo Pascal version? A1: Depends on what version you are using, and for what purposes. If you are using version 3, the answer is a definite yes. There are so many useful additions in the later version, including the concept of units, and a great new useful keywords. The only reason that I can think of for using TP 3 is that it makes .com files (which reside in one memory segment only) instead of .exe files. As an accounting and business finance teacher and researcher I've been somewhat surprised to see postings stating that some users still have to program in TP 3.0 because their employer doesn't want to take the cost of upgrading. I find this cost argument ridiculous. How about some consideration for cost effectiveness and productivity? If you are currently using version 4.0, the most important point in considering upgrading is the integrated debugger in the later versions. It is really good, and useful if you write much code. There are some minor considerations, as well. Later versions contain some useful routines which 4.0 does not. (I have programmed some of them to be available for 4.0 in my /pc/ts/tspa2340.arc collection, or whatever is the latest when you read this). Furthermore, I find somewhat annoying that the executables will end up in the default directory. If you are currently using version 5.0 the rational reasons to upgrade are needing objects, and a better overlay manager. I have also version 5.5 myself, but switched back to version 5.0 after I had some problems with its linking of object files. (This is a false statement from me, since it turned out that I had made a mistake myself. My thanks are due to bj_stedm@gould2.bristol-poly.ac.uk (Bruce Stedman) for questioning this item). Anyway, I don't use nor need OOP objects (don't confuse linking object files and object oriented programming here). One further point for 5.5. It has a better help function than 5.0, and a few more procedures and predefined constants. The real snag in upgrading (waiving the reasonable cost) is the fact that the units of the different versions are incompatible. If you have a large library of units (as I do) you will have to recompile the lot. This is something that has caused a fair amount of justifiable flak against an otherwise excellent product. A tip. Don't throw away your Turbo Pascal version 3.0 manual, if you have one. It is of use if you resort to the Turbo3 and Graph3 compatibility units. At the time of first writing this Turbo Pascal 6.0 version had been announced. I didn't have it yet myself, but I had been (correctly) informed that its units are not compatible with the earlier versions. I now have Turbo Pascal 6.0, and I must say that my first reactions have been inclined to disappointment and frustration. This is probably partly my own fault, since Turbo Pascal seems to be headed from a common programming language into a full professional's specialized tool, with many features I don't know how to utilize. The only advancement from my point of view really is the multiple file editing, but I have long had alternative programs for that. I think a pattern is emerging here. Rather than being different versions of the same product, the consequtive Turbo Pascals are really different products for different purposes. Version 3.0 was a simple programming language. Version 4.0 extended it into a full scale programming modular pratform. Version 5.0 introduced the debugger. And there an advanced hobbyist's path ended. Version 5.5 introduced object oriented programming, which I'm sure is important for the initiated, but personally I just dont't need it even if I write a lot of programs. And with the 6.0 we go completely out of the realm of conventional programming into Turbo Pascal visions. ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi (Moderating at anon. ftp site 128.214.12.3) School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick) (01/09/91)
In article <1991Jan8.215108.24559@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes: >8. ***** > Q: Should I upgrade my Turbo Pascal version? > >A. [...] >scale programming modular pratform. Version 5.0 introduced the >debugger. And there an advanced hobbyist's path ended. Version 5.5 >introduced object oriented programming, which I'm sure is important >for the initiated, but personally I just dont't need it even if I >write a lot of programs. And with the 6.0 we go completely out of >the realm of conventional programming into Turbo Pascal visions I want to agree with the author, and comment on turbo vision. Now I am sure that vision offers some powerful features. Borland claims that they even use it to implement the front end (Actually, I don't know if _I_ would use that example to promote anything). However, A: it is implemented as an OO library, and B: the source is not provided. With the number of turbo pascal packages offered with complete source for doing screen management, I am not sure what the big deal is about vision. I havn't yet seen what is so great about the new front end. Part of this is no doubt due the the fact -I've said it before and I'll say it again- the new color scheme does not work on a LCD screen, and lately thats what Ive been using. My advice: If you are happy with 5.0, stay there. -- Chris Kushmerick kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov <===Try this one first kushmerick@pofvax.sunysb.edu
kamal@wpi.WPI.EDU (Kamal Z Zamli) (01/09/91)
In article <2396@bnlux0.bnl.gov> kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick) writes: >In article <1991Jan8.215108.24559@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes: >>8. ***** >> Q: Should I upgrade my Turbo Pascal version? >> >>A. >[...] >>scale programming modular pratform. Version 5.0 introduced the >>debugger. And there an advanced hobbyist's path ended. Version 5.5 >>introduced object oriented programming, which I'm sure is important >>for the initiated, but personally I just dont't need it even if I >>write a lot of programs. And with the 6.0 we go completely out of >>the realm of conventional programming into Turbo Pascal visions > [STUFF DELETED ]] >I want to agree with the author, and comment on turbo vision. >provided. > >With the number of turbo pascal packages offered with complete source for >doing screen management, I am not sure what the big deal is about vision. > >I havn't yet seen what is so great about the new front end. Part of this >is no doubt due the the fact -I've said it before and I'll say it again- >the new color scheme does not work on a LCD screen, and lately thats >what Ive been using. > >My advice: If you are happy with 5.0, stay there. > > >-- I must agree with Chris Kushmerick and Prof. Timo Salmi ( the argument that if you happy with Turbo 5.0, stay there ), although I think Turbo Pascal 5.5 is better than Turbo Pascal 5.0. The feature of Turbo 5.5 that I really like ( it is not available in Turbo 5.0) is that you can paste the example from the help file to your program to see how the function or precedure really works. On the other hand, using TUrbo Pascal 6.0 without a mouse is really pain in the neck. The pull down mwnu is somewhat different now.... ( got to adapt to new environment)
dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) (01/09/91)
In article <2396@bnlux0.bnl.gov> kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick) writes: > >Now I am sure that vision offers some powerful features. Borland >claims that they even use it to implement the front end (Actually, I >don't know if _I_ would use that example to promote anything). > >However, A: it is implemented as an OO library, and B: the source is not >provided. A minor correction: according to Borland, full source for TurboVision is available, with the run-time library source code. I think the price was $199US. This is really competitive with the prices for similar libraries for C, but way out of the league of TP libraries, where Object Professional is available with full source code for about $125US from mail-order houses. >I havn't yet seen what is so great about the new front end. Part of this >is no doubt due the the fact -I've said it before and I'll say it again- >the new color scheme does not work on a LCD screen, and lately thats >what Ive been using. It's also not so hot on a monochrome screen, if you're using a mouse. The scroll bars use one of those block characters with half the pixels on and half off. The mouse cursor is just a reverse-video block; when it lands on the scroll bar, it all but disappears. >My advice: If you are happy with 5.0, stay there. That's generally good advice. One bug in 5.0 that was fixed in 5.5 is with floating point code generation: if you translate Fortran programs with long, complicated expressions that are full of constants, you'll find that 5.5 (and 6.0) are much less likely to give you an error 207 from a coprocessor stack overflow. In fact, if "e" is of type extended, the expression e+e+e+e+e+e+e+e+e+e can't be evaluated in 4.0 or 5.0, but it presents no problems in 5.5 or 6.0. I don't know of any 5.5 bugs that were fixed in 6.0, so if you don't like TV, the only reasons to upgrade would be the inline assembler, the relaxed rules for linking external .OBJ files, and the new debugger and protected mode compiler if you go for the "Professional" version. Duncan Murdoch dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu
bb16@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Bostater) (01/09/91)
In vairous articles, Kamal Z Zamli, christopher kushmerick, and Timo Salmi
write:
[ Gross Summary: TP6.0 and TVision aren't worth upgrading to ]
To make one vote against the majority opinion. I would reccommend upgrading to
TP6.0. One feature that doesn't get mentioned a lot is that TP6.0 can
generate 80286 instrutions ( {$G+} ). This in itself helped me speed up a
couple of program by 25-50%. Granted, if you're still using an 8088, it's not
a feature, but I've been wishing for 286 instructions since TP4.0. The multi-
file editor is also plus (I'm too cheap to spend $$$ on Epsilon, Brief,
<insert favorite editor>, etc) since my other programming editor (PE 2) didn't
interface nicely with TPC.
TVision:
While I can't say that I'm 100% in love with all of their units, they do
provide a building block. I don't really care for their color selection
(Dialog boxes and push buttons esp.) but you have the capability of changing
the colors (and the users of your software can change them again if they
don't like your favorite colors.
As far as not providing all of their source code, the idea behind OOP is to
NOT go back to the building blocks, but to build on, enhance, or delete
features of your building blocks. Sometimes that's easier said then done,
but that's what Borland is trying to get us to do (along with standardizing
to one user interface).
I can't say that I'm 100% in love with OOP techniques or that I'm comfortable
with all the hidden subtleties of inheritance, poly-whatever, etc. Most of
the time I don't use the OOP features, but I try to use them when I can. My
major motivation is remembering when I first started working 8 years ago and
couldn't for the life of me convice the other engineers that indenting their
FORTRAN programs and using variable names other than a, b, aa, bb, i, j, and k
would make life easier down the road.
My Bottom Line:
It's worth the upgrade price just for the 286 instructions. OOPs and TVision
are bonuses to make the deal even better.
Anyway, that's my $0.05 ($0.02 plus overhead)
--
Scott Bostater Georgia Tech Research Institute - Radar Systems Analysis
"My soul finds rest in God alone; my salvation comes from Him" -Ps 62.1
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!bb16
Internet: bb16@prism.gatech.edunewlin@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Captain Kludge) (01/10/91)
From article <19416@hydra.gatech.EDU>, by bb16@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Bostater): > In vairous articles, Kamal Z Zamli, christopher kushmerick, and Timo Salmi > write: > > [ Gross Summary: TP6.0 and TVision aren't worth upgrading to ] > > To make one vote against the majority opinion. I would reccommend upgrading to One for me too. > TVision: > While I can't say that I'm 100% in love with all of their units, they do > provide a building block. I don't really care for their color selection > (Dialog boxes and push buttons esp.) but you have the capability of changing > the colors (and the users of your software can change them again if they > don't like your favorite colors. > One issue that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that Borland has a beta version of Turbo Pascal for windows. And in all probability the windows version will compile Turbo Vision code and produce a windows program. Or a Windows program with a stub that is the text mode version. I think Turbo Vision conforms to some standard like SAA or something. So I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if you are serious about any kind of development for windows then you should learn Turbo Vision now and it will make life a lot easier later. Also after learning and using Turbo Vision for an application I can say that this was by far the easiest user interface that I ever developed and also took the least amount of devlopment time. One more thing: Borland finally got the manuals right. They stay open when you open them which is really nice. -John -- ---------------------------------------------------------- | The only limitations you have are the ones that you | | impose upon yourself. | | -JN |
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (01/10/91)
In article <1991Jan9.194840.18614@en.ecn.purdue.edu> newlin@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Captain Kludge) writes: : > One issue that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that Borland has > a beta version of Turbo Pascal for windows. And in all probability > the windows version will compile Turbo Vision code and produce > a windows program. Or a Windows program with a stub that is the > text mode version. I think Turbo Vision conforms to some standard > like SAA or something. > > So I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if you are serious about > any kind of development for windows then you should learn Turbo > Vision now and it will make life a lot easier later. Also after : Fair enough. And what this also means is that 6.0 should be after all be considered an just intermediate version and we can expect in line the 5th upgrade with incompatible units. Why didn't they make it Windows right away. Borland's upgrading tactics is beginning to raise some aggravation, even for a TP fan, isn't it? ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi (Moderating at anon. ftp site 128.214.12.3) School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick) (01/11/91)
In article <1991Jan10.063046.9686@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes: >In article <1991Jan9.194840.18614@en.ecn.purdue.edu> newlin@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Captain Kludge) writes: >: >> One issue that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that Borland has ... > >Fair enough. And what this also means is that 6.0 should be after >all be considered an just intermediate version and we can expect in >line the 5th upgrade with incompatible units. Why didn't they make >it Windows right away. Borland's upgrading tactics is beginning to >raise some aggravation, even for a TP fan, isn't it? It seems a bit like there is a split personality working there at Borland Central. Would the same brain that decided to include source level assembler in the pascal compiler -a logical and excellent progression from inline- also decide to burdon the users with Vision, the new layout of the editor, no simple color scheme for monochrome monitors etcetera? Today I got a letter from borland pushing the spread sheet, Quattro, for $95, thats 400 dollars off of the list price. Now we all know that list prices are a fraud to begin with. But for the manufacturer to sell something for 25% of the list price seems absurd. Who prey tell did the market study that concluded that the list price should be so high? I still like borland, but sometimes they make me wonder. -- Chris Kushmerick kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov <===Try this one first kushmerick@pofvax.sunysb.edu
kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick) (01/11/91)
Does anyone currently work with an editor that can spawn off turbo pascal compiles? Does anyone have an editor that can point you to an error? Does TPC compile any aster than the IDE? What editors do _YOU_ use with turbo pascal (other than IDE)? Responses by email welcome. -- Chris Kushmerick kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov <===Try this one first kushmerick@pofvax.sunysb.edu
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (01/12/91)
In article <2404@bnlux0.bnl.gov> kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick) writes: >Does anyone currently work with an editor that can spawn off turbo pascal >compiles? Does anyone have an editor that can point you to an error? > >Does TPC compile any aster than the IDE? What editors do _YOU_ use with >turbo pascal (other than IDE)? Responses by email welcome. : QEdit Advanced 2.1 (/pc/pd2/qedit21.zip) can do part of it. Spawning TPC can be made to be just one keystoke away. But it does not take you to the line where an error is. ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi (Moderating at anon. ftp site 128.214.12.3) School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
nate@neutron.lcs.mit.edu (01/12/91)
Chris, I use epsilon 5.0 with which you can easily edit your pascal program in one window while you run a dos process in the other. In the dos window you can run TPC and then pop into the progam listing window and fix the code, save the program, move back to the process window and try again. Epsilon has features to let bring you to the next error, but I don't bother because the editor is so fast to do searches and the next error is just a little farther down the line. Epsilon is fully extensible, very fast and a full featured emulation of EMACS. I think that it is the best editor around. Nate Liskov
John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (01/12/91)
In article <2403@bnlux0.bnl.gov>, kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick) says: >It seems a bit like there is a split personality working there at Borland >Central. The PC is developing a split personality. One part of the PC world is going with windows: another part has a severe allergy to the product (or doesn't have the hardware to run it half decently). Given this problem, it seems to me that the logical course is to build a character based user interface that will be compatable with MS-Windows and will allow users who wish to do so to port their programs to windows. >Would the same brain that decided to include source level assembler in the >pascal compiler -a logical and excellent progression from inline- also decide >to burdon the users with Vision, the new layout of the editor, no simple color >scheme for monochrome monitors etcetera? Looks to me like the new environment is simply in line with the developing standard for PC user interfaces. I'm not completely thrilled with it either, but I can see why it's set up the way it is: if I was Borland, I probably would have done it the same way. >Today I got a letter from borland pushing the spread sheet, Quattro, for $95, >thats 400 dollars off of the list price. Now we all know that list prices >are a fraud to begin with. But for the manufacturer to sell something for >25% of the list price seems absurd. Who prey tell did the market study that >concluded that the list price should be so high? Would you believe retailers charge you 50% of the cover price for the privilege of dealing with a nice sales person who has a neat suit, clean fingernails, and knows nothing at all about computers? disclaimer: Queen's University merely supplies me with computer services, and they are responsible for neither my opinions or my ignorance. John G. Spragge
conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz (Conrad Bullock) (01/13/91)
In article <1991Jan10.063046.9686@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes: >Fair enough. And what this also means is that 6.0 should be after >all be considered an just intermediate version and we can expect in >line the 5th upgrade with incompatible units. Why didn't they make >it Windows right away. Borland's upgrading tactics is beginning to >raise some aggravation, even for a TP fan, isn't it? Are the TP 6.0 Units incompatible with those of 5.5? The actual TPU headers produced by V5.5 say V6 in them... -- Conrad Bullock, Domain: conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz The Cave MegaBBS, BBS Ph: + 64 4 643-429 Wellington, New Zealand.
dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) (01/14/91)
In article <1991Jan13.104654.18292@cavebbs.gen.nz> conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz (Conrad Bullock) writes: >Are the TP 6.0 Units incompatible with those of 5.5? The actual TPU >headers produced by V5.5 say V6 in them... Yes, they're incompatible - the header says TPU9 now. But one thing you have to understand about TPU files is that they're not suited to being used with different compiler versions, because they always contain references to a particular version of the SYSTEM unit. Remember, a unit must always be recompiled after any changes to the interface of any unit that it uses. It's certainly not a good idea to pay for any TP library that doesn't come with source code. If the publisher stops supporting it, you'll be out of luck when upgrade time comes. I'd say this applies to the TurboVision library that comes with TP 6 - if you're going to rely on it, buy the source code. Borland has a bad record about continuing support for their toolboxes. On the other hand, they've never included one with the compiler before, so this case might be different. Duncan Murdoch
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan14.032709.17652@maytag.waterloo.edu> dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) writes: > >It's certainly not a good idea to pay for any TP library that doesn't come >with source code. If the publisher stops supporting it, you'll be >out of luck when upgrade time comes. I'd say this applies to the TurboVision >library that comes with TP 6 - if you're going to rely on it, buy the source >code. Borland has a bad record about continuing support for their toolboxes. : I agree fully with what Duncan says in this discussion about TPU incompatibility across the different versions of Turbo Pascal. Fortunately eg TP Numerical Methods Toolbox came with sources so I have been able to update those of my programs that relied on it. On the other hand not wanting to release my own sources, I've had to release four different versions of my PD units collection, as I'm sure many readers of our newsgroup know. No big deal really, since I have batches to take automatically care of any update trough all the versions. But on the other hand I must own (or rather my University, for me) each TP version. We have been writing a bit negatively about TP, because of some aggravating features and policies. But in all it is still an excellent product. One recent sideline, which I have had the opportunity to look at, is Turbo Profiler. Really useful for testing code efficiency for critical parts of a TP program. Comes, incidentally, with a similar user interface as TP 6.0. Dialox boxes etc. (Motto: If nothing else helps, press TAB :-) ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi (Moderating at anon. ftp site 128.214.12.3) School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
system@syzzle.chi.il.us (SYSTEM 0PERATOR) (01/15/91)
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes: > Fair enough. And what this also means is that 6.0 should be after > all be considered an just intermediate version and we can expect in > line the 5th upgrade with incompatible units. Why didn't they make > it Windows right away. Borland's upgrading tactics is beginning to > raise some aggravation, even for a TP fan, isn't it? Might just raise Borland's profits also!
eli@smectos.gang.umass.edu (Eli Brandt) (01/15/91)
In article <2404@bnlux0.bnl.gov> kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick) writes: >Does anyone currently work with an editor that can spawn off turbo pascal >compiles? Does anyone have an editor that can point you to an error? > >Does TPC compile any aster than the IDE? What editors do _YOU_ use with >turbo pascal (other than IDE)? Responses by email welcome. >Chris Kushmerick >kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov <===Try this one first >kushmerick@pofvax.sunysb.edu I'm currently using FreeMacs, which is an MSDOS semi-clone of GNU Emacs. It *is* rather slow, being written in an interpreted Lispish language, but it works well on a fastish 386. Which I don't have. However, it's disgustingly configurable and extendable and it (obviously) lets you do whatever you want for your compile, like run cpp first. It also can "read" the compiler messages and find the error line, but I haven't gotten this working exactly right. Very nice editor, available from SIMTEL msdos/editor. Eli
rind@popvax.uucp (747707@d.rind) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan16.142841.18@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> phys169@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes: >> >Also, I've heard TP 6 requires lots of CPU speed and a lot of disk, for >relatively few benefits (yet another GUI, but no MS-Winodows, not decent >high-memory support, no >64Kb arrays, etc). Any contradictions? or should I >wait for TP7?? After using TP 6.0 for about a month now, I think the improvements to the IDE (like multiple windows) are just about balanced by the things they did that make it less intuitive and harder to use without a mouse. TurboVision is taking me a long time to figure out (perhaps someone with a lot of OOP experience would have an easier time, but I think the problem is just figuring out someone else's concept of how to do things.) On the plus side, there are all sorts of bizarre references to old Monty Python routines scattered through the manual. David Rind rind@popvax.harvard.edu