Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!plunkett From: plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) Newsgroups: net.lang.pascal,net.micro.cpm,net.micro.pc Subject: Turbo Pascal: Any bad news? Message-ID: <1786@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Mar-84 12:23:18 EST Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1786 Posted: Thu Mar 8 12:23:18 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Mar-84 07:06:27 EST Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA Lines: 25 . I have read startling things re Turbo Pascal from Borland Int'l: o 4000 lines/minute compilation o Reasonably ISO conformant o Takes up 28K (compiler, editor, the lot) OK, now what's the trade-off here? 28K (bytes?) seems incredible. A good syntax-scanner for Pascal would take up more than that, never mind a Wordstar style editor, code-generator, and the rest lumped in as well. (It must be overlayed, but no one has mentioned this so far.) What is produced? A CMD file? A REL file? What of linking in separately developed routines? Relocatable libraries? Does the edit-buffer page to disk? What is the executable size of the following program? program tiny; begin end. I'm hunting for a good reason *not* to buy Turbo. Or has Compiler Utopia arrived? -- ..{allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett