aaron@rruxh.UUCP (Akman) (06/12/90)
From message <3239@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> it is confusing whether Borland is 1.2 or 2.0 compatible. Can someone explain? **Borland Turbo C++ ** AT&T 2.0 compatible ** No windows support yet ** (Introductory price?) ** Mouse driven interactive development environment (or keyboard) ** Can use any editor, debugger, etc. ** Good customer support ** Libraries include stream-cfront 1.2, no streamio -- ----------- Aaron Akman, 201-699-8019, bellcore!rruxh!aaron, RRC 4D-728
sidney@saturn.ucsc.edu (Sidney Markowitz ) (06/13/90)
In article <AARON.90Jun12094456@rruxh.rruxh.UUCP> aaron@rruxh.UUCP (Akman) writes: >From message <3239@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> it is confusing whether >Borland is 1.2 or 2.0 compatible. Can someone explain? I'm not sure how to parse the last line either, but the correct information is that TurboC++ fully implements the AT&T 2.0 version of the language, including iostreams, and also includes a library that implements the old 1.2 streams. -- sidney markowitz <sidney@saturn.ucsc.edu>
880716a@aucs.uucp (Dave Astels) (06/13/90)
In article <4338@darkstar.ucsc.edu> sidney@saturn.ucsc.edu (Sidney Markowitz ) writes: > >I'm not sure how to parse the last line either, but the correct >information is that TurboC++ fully implements the AT&T 2.0 version of >the language, including iostreams, and also includes a library that >implements the old 1.2 streams. I was under the impression that the AT&T 2.0 stream library (iostreams) was still proprietry. If they have released it, where can I get a copy of the source (or Zortech binaries)? It has to implement C++ 2.00 or it wouldn't compete (no to mention being 5 years out of date). -- - Dave Astels Internet: 880716a@AcadiaU.CA Bitnet: 880716a@Acadia
omathuna@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Eoin OMathuna) (08/17/90)
Hi, At the moment I program in Turbo C v2.0 and a friend of mine suggested that I change over to C++, in particular Turbo C++ Could someone tell me the main difference between C and C++ and if Turbo C++ is a good version, and is it worth getting the professional edition? Any comments would be greatly appreciated, Email omathuna@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu Thanks in advance Eoin..
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (08/23/90)
In article <3836@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> omathuna@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Eoin OMathuna) writes: >Hi, > >At the moment I program in Turbo C v2.0 and a friend of mine >suggested that I change over to C++, in particular Turbo C++ > >Could someone tell me the main difference between C and C++ and >if Turbo C++ is a good version, and is it worth getting the professional >edition? I've just started using Turbo C++ after having used Turbo C 1.0 a while back at a previous job. I'd recommend getting it for the simple reason that you'll be able to use/learn C++ (which is likely to become the new way to program in C). However, you can still use normal straight C code if you like, so you won't be stuck doing everything in C++. The only complaint I've had about C++ from Borland is the "class hierarchy" they provide. Basically, they include sample class files that compose a class hierarchy dealing with Arrays, Collections, Strings and other "collection" oriented objects. It seems these were provided as just samples which explains the fact that theres very little documentation on the classes themselves and no documentation on how to make constructive use of them. However, after doing a tiptoe through the CPP and .H files it becomes obvious what is expected (oh, also after a couple of errors from the pre-processor saying I hadn't defined a few routines for my descendants.) I've been having fun with the language, though. -- "Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for trivial pursuit." -Harlan Ellison Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us
dijkp@twssun.pttrnl.nl (Patrick van Dijk) (12/04/90)
When I was reading Dr Dobbs of November, I noticed something on the last page of it. It's an advertisement of Borlands Turbo C++. They compare it to some C++ compilers, why not comparing it to Zortech. Is this because Zortech is better ?
joe@proto.COM (Joe Huffman) (12/06/90)
In article <dijkp.660314230@twssun>, dijkp@twssun.pttrnl.nl (Patrick van Dijk) writes: > When I was reading Dr Dobbs of November, I noticed something > on the last page of it. > > It's an advertisement of Borlands Turbo C++. They compare > it to some C++ compilers, why not comparing it to Zortech. > Is this because Zortech is better ? Note: They don't even compare it to other C++ compilers, only Microsoft C. But that Borland is aware of their deficiencies and doesn't want to talk about it has been my conclusion. When one of the people from Borland asked to subscribe to the Zortech mailing list I made mention of them not makeing any acknowledgement of our existance in their ads and was surprised (sarcasm) to see them be interested in our mailing list. I never received a reply. :-) Of course it has been pointed out to me that Borland is very good at marketing and marketing is just doing their job. Don't mention weaknesses and emphasize their strengths. Also notice that they say "THE FIRST TURBO-CHARGED C++". Of course they don't define what 'turbo-charged' means. Ask someone who has compared compile times with the Zortech compiler what they think 'turbo-charged' means! --- Zortech mailing list: send email to 'ztc-list-request@uunet.uu.net' with: Add: your-user-name@your-machine-name In the body of the message. --- Send Zortech bug reports to 'zortech-bugs@proto.com' Send requests for educational discounts to 'zortech-ed@proto.com' --- Zortech is my major source of income. Statements about them or their competitors cannot be totally without bias. -- joe@proto.com FAX: 208-263-8772