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