Mark_Lehrer@f170.n771.z3.fidonet.org (Mark Lehrer) (05/18/91)
I read on IBM's bulletin board that IBM and Borland have made agreements for 32-bit OS/2 programming tools. The only other thing on the BBS was that they will ship early next year. No mention which languages will apply, but I imagine C++ will take top priority. This is a pretty scary thought - Borland with OS/2 languages!! However, it will be awhile... --- Maximus-CBCS v1.02-OS/2-R4 * Origin: The Akron Anomaly - 320 meg - V32bis/HST - 2 lines (1:157/535)
Steve_Lesner@f170.n771.z3.fidonet.org (Steve Lesner) (05/19/91)
EB> By the time you read this, you will probably already know that BORLAND EB> will be developing C++ (OS/2 2.0) for IBM. Were did you hear this? And could you elaborate on what you mean by developing C++ for IBM? Are you talking 32 bit compiler? Are you talking about Borland writing a compiler for IBM to sell? I'm confused but I think what you mean is they simply are writing their compiler to run under OS/2. I'd be real interested in further material here. I was just about ready to write Borland off myself and never followed up with moving from C 2.0 to C++ for windows for obvious reasons. --- Maximus-CBCS v1.02.OS/2.B0 * Origin: Uh Huh, OS/2, I've got the right one Baby, Uh Huh (1:141/261)
green@vis.toronto.edu (Anthony Thomas Green) (05/23/91)
Steve_Lesner@f170.n771.z3.fidonet.org (Steve Lesner) writes: > EB> By the time you read this, you will probably already know that BORLAND > EB> will be developing C++ (OS/2 2.0) for IBM. >Were did you hear this? And could you elaborate on what you mean by >developing C++ for IBM? Are you talking 32 bit compiler? Are you talking >about Borland writing a compiler for IBM to sell? I'm confused but I think >what you mean is they simply are writing their compiler to run under OS/2. Maybe somebody could clear this up for me. I remember reading that Borland licenced most of their C compiler technology from Watcom. However, when I glanced at this months Computer Language magazine, which has benchmarks comparing the two companies' compilers, there was a large discrepancy between their ratings. Does anybody know anything about this? Anthony Green green@vis.toronto.edu
sidney@borland.com (Sidney Markowitz) (05/23/91)
green@vis.toronto.edu (Anthony Thomas Green) writes: >Steve_Lesner@f170.n771.z3.fidonet.org (Steve Lesner) writes: >> EB> By the time you read this, you will probably already know that BORLAND >> EB> will be developing C++ (OS/2 2.0) for IBM. > >>Were did you hear this? And could you elaborate on what you mean by >>developing C++ for IBM? Are you talking 32 bit compiler? Are you talking >>about Borland writing a compiler for IBM to sell? I'm confused but I think >>what you mean is they simply are writing their compiler to run under OS/2. > >Maybe somebody could clear this up for me. I remember reading that >Borland licenced most of their C compiler technology from Watcom. The joint Borland/IBM press release announced that IBM and Borland have entered into an agreement whereby Borland will be developing specific object-oriented languages and programming tools for OS/2 2.0, that the first one will be Borland C++ and that it should be available early next year. I have to be careful to only say what was in the copy of the press release that I have, since that is all that I can be sure has been publicly announced, but Philippe Kahn is quoted as saying that "Borland C++ for OS/2 will allow developers to take full advantage of computers with 32 bit architectures." Borland's compiler technology is all in-house. The only connection with Watcom that I am aware of is an arrangement that allows Watcom to use Borland's debugging information format so that Borland's debugger can work with their compiler. -- Sidney Markowitz <sidney@borland.com> Borland International (Languages - R&D) [Disclaimer: I am a hacker, not an official spokesperson]