pcb@basin04.cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs) (02/27/91)
From what I have heard Borland C++ is written in MS C and people at MS are using BC++ until their C++ is ready ! unbelievable, I guess. I can compile sdk stuff under a command.pif window in windows. Can I do the same with BC++? A similar question is, does BC++ use physical memory (i.e. ext or exp) or is using the win3 virtual memory when people say it needs 2mb to run. What kind of graphics classes come with BC++? Is it just windows or are there things like objectgraphics in Actor. IS IT A STABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR REAL WORK or just an experimental tool?!?! (please don't drill me on OO, I know, I just don't want my development envt. to crash before my app does! no names mentioned) /*----------- Thanks in advance... --------------------------------------+ | Peter C. Bahrs | | The USL-NASA Project | | Center For Advanced Computer Studies INET: pcb@swamp.cacs.usl.edu | | 2 Rex Street | | University of Southwestern Louisiana ...!uunet!dalsqnt!gator!pcb | | Lafayette, LA 70504 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------*/
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (02/27/91)
About Borland using MSC for their stuff. I DOUBT IT SEVERELY. To find out, simply use GREP or Norton Text Search (TS) and search .COM and .EXE files for the string "Borland" or "Microsoft". Compilers usually embed this copyright string in the software they compile (hey, I found it in LHX Attack Chopper and all the Borland QPRO stuff!). Brian
scott@blueeyes.kines.uiuc.edu (scott) (02/28/91)
In article <25946@rouge.usl.edu> pcb@basin04.cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs) writes: >From what I have heard Borland C++ is written in MS C and people at >MS are using BC++ until their C++ is ready ! unbelievable, I guess. I'm not so sure about the former. I heard that Borland's ObjectVision was written in MSC (courtesy of either Spencer Katt or Bob Cringely), but have not heard the same about BC++. >the same with BC++? A similar question is, does BC++ use physical memory >(i.e. ext or exp) or is using the win3 virtual memory when people say it >needs 2mb to run. It's not using Windows anything when run from the DOS command line, so it requires physical-type memory.
wallis@sieras.enet.dec.com (Barry L. Wallis) (03/04/91)
In article <27180@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes... >About Borland using MSC for their stuff. I DOUBT IT SEVERELY. To find >out, simply use GREP or Norton Text Search (TS) and search .COM and .EXE >files for the string "Borland" or "Microsoft". Compilers usually embed >this copyright string in the software they compile (hey, I found it in >LHX Attack Chopper and all the Borland QPRO stuff!). > Here's an interesting twist. The Whitewater Resource Toolkit Resource Compiler is Microsoft's. In fact when you run it the only copyright that is displayed is by Microsoft. So I guess Borland licensed it from Whitewater and Whitewater licensed it from MS (and they each need to make a profit on it). --- Barry L. Wallis USENET: wallis@labc.dec.com Database Consultant Prodigy (don't laugh): DNMX41A U.S. DECtp Resource Center DECUServe: EISNER::WALLIS (not on the net yet) Los Angeles, CA "No one voted for me, I represent myself" ---
andy@bluemoon.uucp (Andy Vaught) (03/05/91)
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: > About Borland using MSC for their stuff. I DOUBT IT SEVERELY. To find > out, simply use GREP or Norton Text Search (TS) and search .COM and .EXE > files for the string "Borland" or "Microsoft". Compilers usually embed > this copyright string in the software they compile (hey, I found it in > LHX Attack Chopper and all the Borland QPRO stuff!). Remember-- C compilers are almost always written in C themselves. The usual development sequence would have Borland writting their compiler in C, compiling with MSC. When debugged, the new compiler can be used to compile itself, leaving behind its MSC heritage. Given that MSC was the only way to write windows system programs, it seems highly unlikely that the Borland developers could have used anything else. Other neat bootstrap techniques are possible with this arrangement. For instance, suppose you have a compiler that doesn't recognize the '\a' as a 0x07. All you do is go the place where these strings are parsed and add the case: if (nextchar == 'a') { emit(0x07); break; } Then you compile this, and it'll work fine. Then go back to the source and edit it to: if (nextchar == 'a') { emit('\a'); break; } and voila'-- the 0x07 is flat out *gone*. There is also the story about the birthday C-compiler, but back to windows...
oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) (03/05/91)
Actually, InfoWorld reported that Borland's PK finally fessed up to ObjectVision being written in MicroSoft's C. Who knows if it is true. bruce -- | Bruce O'Neel | internet : oneel@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov| | Code 664/STX | span : lheavx::oneel | | NASA/GSFC |compuserve: 72737,1315 | | Greenbelt MD 20771 | AT&Tnet : (301)-286-1119 |
thj@mtcchi.uucp (XT0221000-Tom Hjellming(ZG90210)0000) (03/06/91)
wallis@sieras.enet.dec.com (Barry L. Wallis) writes: >In article <27180@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes... >>About Borland using MSC for their stuff. I DOUBT IT SEVERELY. To find >>out, simply use GREP or Norton Text Search (TS) and search .COM and .EXE >>files for the string "Borland" or "Microsoft". Compilers usually embed >>this copyright string in the software they compile (hey, I found it in >>LHX Attack Chopper and all the Borland QPRO stuff!). >> >Here's an interesting twist. The Whitewater Resource Toolkit Resource Compiler >is Microsoft's. In fact when you run it the only copyright that is displayed is >by Microsoft. So I guess Borland licensed it from Whitewater and Whitewater >licensed it from MS (and they each need to make a profit on it). I'm not sure I believe that. WRT was actually written using ACTOR (The Whitewater Group's OOP language). The older manual (WRT version 1.0) says that the WRT was developed as an example of what you can do with ACTOR. I would believe that ACTOR was written using MSC since MS-C was the only compiler you could use for Win development back in ~1985 when ACTOR started. So you may be seeing strings from that. Now what may tie all this together was the rumor that my boss told me a month or two ago: Microsoft bought The Whitewater Group. But I'm not sure I believe that either since I haven't seen anything about it in the trade rags. Now we're getting off on tangents... >--- >Barry L. Wallis USENET: wallis@labc.dec.com >Database Consultant Prodigy (don't laugh): DNMX41A >U.S. DECtp Resource Center DECUServe: EISNER::WALLIS (not on the net yet) >Los Angeles, CA "No one voted for me, I represent myself" >--- Tom -- Tom Hjellming Software Consultant Analysts International Corp. (AiC) Schaumburg, IL
johnm@spudge.UUCP (John Munsch) (03/06/91)
In article <2HcBy1w163w@bluemoon.uucp> andy@bluemoon.uucp (Andy Vaught) writes: >Remember-- C compilers are almost always written in C themselves. The >usual development sequence would have Borland writting their compiler in >C, compiling with MSC. When debugged, the new compiler can be used to >compile itself, leaving behind its MSC heritage. Given that MSC was the >only way to write windows system programs, it seems highly unlikely that >the Borland developers could have used anything else. A good theory, if Borland C++ were a Windows system program. It isn't. It's the same old IDE as we saw in Turbo C++ v1.0 with a few modifications so it can spit out Windows compatible executables. It seems unlikely that the IDE was done in MSC because it utilizes VROOM. Also, I've seen the compiler run, it's too fast to have been written in Microsoft :-). As for the Whitewater Resource Toolkit, I would guess that it is written in Actor. Never having used Actor though I could be very wrong. John Munsch
wallis@sieras.enet.dec.com (Barry L. Wallis) (03/07/91)
I need to recant something I said in a previous posting (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa). Being a Windows programming novice I got the Whitewater Resource Toolkit and the Resource Compiler confused. According to TFM the Resource Compiler is Microsoft's while the Toolkit is Whitewater's (no MS copyright notice is displayed by the Toolkit). --- Barry L. Wallis USENET: wallis@labc.dec.com Database Consultant Prodigy (don't laugh): DNMX41A U.S. DECtp Resource Center DECUServe: EISNER::WALLIS (not on the net yet) Los Angeles, CA "No one voted for me, I represent myself" ---
philbo@dhw68k.cts.com (Phil Lindsay) (03/13/91)
In article <28201@spudge.UUCP> johnm@spudge.UUCP (John Munsch) writes: > >As for the Whitewater Resource Toolkit, I would guess that it is written in >Actor. Never having used Actor though I could be very wrong. > >John Munsch To erase any doubt... The Whitewater Resource Toolkit *IS* written in ACTOR. BTW, Actor is available for $99.00 till April 1st...I want to order it, but I must convince my wife first :-) [just ordered BC++] -- Phil Lindsay - "Patents threaten future technology" Internet: philbo@dhw68k.cts.com Phone: Wrk7143852311 Hm7142891201 UUCP: {spsd,zardox,felix}!dhw68k!philbo USMAIL: 152A S. Cross Creek Rd, Orange, Ca. 92669