Jason.Kankiewicz@f345.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Jason Kankiewicz) (07/07/90)
TopSpeed's linker should operate like Turbo C & Pascal because TopSpeed M2 used to be Turbo Modula-2, which Borland never released. (With the success of Turbo Pascal, I can't imagine why.... :^) ) Jensen took the source code and split to form JPI, he loved the product (and the potential profits) too much to let it rot on a shelf. -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!109!345!Jason.Kankiewicz Internet: Jason.Kankiewicz@f345.n109.z1.fidonet.org
Peter.M..Perchansky@f101.n273.z1.fidonet.org (Peter M. Perchansky) (07/09/90)
Hello Jason:
TopSpeed Modula-2 is no longer Borland's Turbo Modula-2, Jason. JPI has enchanced TopSpeed to the point where there are only a small number of similarities between the present TopSpeed, and the old Turbo.
--
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!273!101!Peter.M..Perchansky
Internet: Peter.M..Perchansky@f101.n273.z1.fidonet.orgJason.Kankiewicz@f345.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Jason Kankiewicz) (07/11/90)
Do you have any idea why Borland undertook the development of a Modula-2 compiler? They must have known that a decent implementation would have directly competed with their previously successful (and probably most famous product) Turbo Pascal. I was aware that JPI had made enhancements to TopSpeed and continue to do so. I was just throwing up a bit of trivia. -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!109!345!Jason.Kankiewicz Internet: Jason.Kankiewicz@f345.n109.z1.fidonet.org
Peter.M..Perchansky@f101.n273.z1.fidonet.org (Peter M. Perchansky) (07/13/90)
Hello Jason:
I'm not sure exactly why Borland started to create their own Modula-2 compiler; I do know that they stopped due to cost and time over runs.
--
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!273!101!Peter.M..Perchansky
Internet: Peter.M..Perchansky@f101.n273.z1.fidonet.orgtoma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (07/16/90)
In article <1611.269E1B18@puddle.fidonet.org> Jason.Kankiewicz@f345.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Jason Kankiewicz) writes: >Do you have any idea why Borland undertook the development of a Modula-2 >compiler? They must have known that a decent implementation would have >directly competed with their previously successful (and probably most >famous product) Turbo Pascal. If the size of the market for all compilers was limited, that would be true. But while there probably be fewer Pascal compilers sold, the combined total for both compilers would be much larger (everybody who owned Turbo Pascal would just have to buy Turbo Modula-2, and "complete the collection"). If anything they were scared off by fear of too small a market -- after all they abandoned Prolog and BASIC for that reason. On the other hand, they went after C with great success, and now more recently C++. Yet they haven't destroyed their Turbo Pascal market. Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply (I have Turbo Pascal, Prolog, C, and C++)