mikem@otc.otca.oz (Mike Mowbray) (05/25/90)
Does anyone know whether there's a version of Borland Turbo C++ for OS/2 ?
Mike Mowbray ACSnet: mikem@otc.oz
UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.oz!mikemjca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (05/26/90)
mikem@otc.otca.oz (Mike Mowbray) writes: >Does anyone know whether there's a version of Borland Turbo C++ for OS/2 ? Last I heard, Borland has NO plans on ever porting any of their compilers to OS/2. Borland actually surveyed their users of their compilers and not a single one said they were ever going to need to use OS/2. Borland was working on porting Turbo C to OS/2, but after this survey, the project was abandoned from my understanding. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | Small memory model only for ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | of here! ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
davidi@well.sf.ca.us (David Intersimone) (05/27/90)
in message 7820 John Archambeau asks if we will do Turbo C++ for os/2... at our product announcement on May 14th and for the last 9 months we have told the world that we are committed to building products (languages and applications) for DOS, Windows, and OS/2. Turbo C++ currently supports developing applications for DOS. we are working on the support for other systems. The issues for development have been that both Windows and OS/2 have been in transition for the last year or so. In the windows world everyone was waiting for the 3.0 version. Now it is out and we'll support it in a future release. In the OS/2 world, everyone is anticipating the 2.0 version that supports 32 bit mode - finally a large linear address space... we will support OS/2 also with our languages and tools. In fact for windows 3 support - last tuesday at the win3 announcement in New York and around the country, we demonstrated our Paradox Engine package as a dynalink library. that technology has both a traditional C and als (also) a c++ oop layer to it. demonstration programs (forms oriented kind of things) were shown written in an internal version of the Turbo C++ compiler. So no announcement date, just showing our committment to all the three Intel chip based platforms. We have not abandoned OS/2. It takes time to come out with good products for each platform. We did Turbo C++ first for DOS - the rest will come in future releases. When they are ready, we will announce and ship those products like we did Turbo C++ - we announced on May 14th and were shipping products that day - in fact we gave everyone at the launch a copy of the product to take home with them. David Intersimone (better known as David I) Director, Developer Relations "Turbo Language Ambassador to the World" Borland International
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (05/27/90)
davidi@well.sf.ca.us (David Intersimone) writes: >in message 7820 John Archambeau asks if we will do Turbo C++ for os/2... I quite frankly don't care if you do make an OS/2 product or not. What I personally would like to see is a Xenix or Unix System V/386 3.2 based compiler that is capable of compiling to any Intel based operating system out there (i.e. OS/2 (even though I personally don't use it, others do), DOS, Windows, and Unix System V/386 3.2). Currently, all one can do is just either compile to DOS, Unix, or Xenix if you're using a Unix based compiler. OS/2 and Windows compilation from Unix doesn't exist. My understaind based on what I've read (either from the FidoNet C conference or in a magazine article) that Borland had no plans on ever developing OS/2 compilers. Well, if anybody's going to correct me, it might as well be the manufacturer. :) >So no announcement date, just showing our committment to all the three >Intel chip based platforms. Don't forget the fourth platform, Unix. As time marches on, I find I spend more time in Unix. My DOS usage is so limited these days that I don't do anything that VP/ix can't handle. Granted I did order Quattro Pro at the $99 promo price, but unfortunately I do not have the hard drive space to install it under my current system. The big test for Quattro Pro will be if it runs glitch free under VP/ix. Unfortunately, I don't have DOSWindows for the Sun SPARCstation 1 at work, so I can't fire it up on there and see if it runs. Something I think that Borland should consider doing is developing the multiplatform Intel compiler that can compile from DOS to OS/2, OS/2 to Unix, Unix to DOS, etc. I am happy with your DOS based C compiler as it does the job quite nicely and look forward to seeing your C++ compiler, but within a year or so time frame, I probably won't be looking for any more DOS software at all since it will all will most likely be strictly Unix. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | Small memory model only for ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | of here! ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
osbornk@mist.cs.orst.edu (Kasey S. Osborn) (05/29/90)
In article <2834@crash.cts.com> you write: |davidi@well.sf.ca.us (David Intersimone) writes: |>in message 7820 John Archambeau asks if we will do Turbo C++ for os/2... | |I quite frankly don't care if you do make an OS/2 product or not. What I |personally would like to see is a Xenix or Unix System V/386 3.2 based |compiler that is capable of compiling to any Intel based operating system out |there (i.e. OS/2 (even though I personally don't use it, others do), DOS, |Windows, and Unix System V/386 3.2). Currently, all one can do is just either |compile to DOS, Unix, or Xenix if you're using a Unix based compiler. OS/2 |and Windows compilation from Unix doesn't exist. Not entirely true. At work (Statware, Inc.) I use SCO Unix System V (v?). It will build objects for DOS & OS/2 by doing cc -dos or cc -os2. I believe it is a port of MSC 5.1 or so. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows objects could be built as well. Even CodeView 2.4.3 has been ported to this environment. At last, a real debugger for the Unix environment!
byock@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Bill Yock) (05/30/90)
From article <2813@crash.cts.com>, by jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau): > mikem@otc.otca.oz (Mike Mowbray) writes: >>Does anyone know whether there's a version of Borland Turbo C++ for OS/2 ? > > Last I heard, Borland has NO plans on ever porting any of their compilers to > OS/2. Borland actually surveyed their users of their compilers and not a > on porting Turbo C to OS/2, but after this survey, the project was abandoned > from my understanding. > I wouldn't say they have no plans of ever supporting it. At a recent Paradox conference PK hinted at some of there directions in the future. Basically, they forsee the Windows market as more critical than the OS/2 market and the OS/2 market as being before the Unix environment. I think Borland will try to develope stuff for what they think is the short term operating system market. Now if enough people will call Borland asking for OS/2 TC++ maybe their impressions will change. By the way they do have a OS/2 version of Paradox but they are behind in porting the new 3.0 version changes to it. -- Bill Yock, Weeg Computing Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 byock@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
remke@unlisys.UUCP (Jan K. Remke) (06/07/90)
I've read something in the system, where I got to leave my comments... >> Last I heard, Borland has NO plans on ever porting any of their compilers to >> OS/2. Borland actually surveyed their users of their compilers and not a >> on porting Turbo C to OS/2, but after this survey, the project was abandoned >> from my understanding. >> >Now if enough people will call Borland asking for OS/2 TC++ maybe their >impressions will change. By the way they do have a OS/2 version of Paradox >but they are behind in porting the new 3.0 version changes to it. Why should anyone support EXOTIC operating systems. It'll be better if Borland would support UNIX, rather than OS/2. (OS/2 = Half an operating system) OS/2? Just say NO. I would never ever ask Borland to do that, though DOS is alredy bad enough. Best wishes to all OS/2 frustated people... Jan.