Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-sde!hpcuhb!hpindda!hardin From: hardin@hpindda.HP.COM (John Hardin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Turbo C 2.0 and EMS Message-ID: <4330113@hpindda.HP.COM> Date: 5 Dec 88 17:51:33 GMT References: <1624@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA Lines: 31 >Gee, remember when Borland was the company that gave you far more then you >could want for $49.95? Somebody ought to tell Phillippe that integrated >environments are not the be-all, end-all of programming. Turbo Pascal was >a hit more because it was a quality Pascal compiler for $50 than because >of the environment. > >Chris >schanck@flounder.cis.ohio-state.edu >---------- I'd like to offer a counter opinion here. I have been programming since the sixties on lots of different machines and using lots of different languages, but when I first saw Turbo Pascal on a CP/M machine I thought it was the slickest thing I'd ever seen. The reason was entirely the integrated environment. Though I agree that its nicer if you can use a full featured editor (my favorite is Brief) when you are doing major editing, once you are into the debugging stage it's hard to beat an integrated environment. I use Turbo C 2.0 and love being able to step though my program with the integrated debugger, find a bug, fix the source, then re-compile and link without losing the breakpoints I set or the watch variables. Its a real pain when a program gets too big for this environment because of the loss of productivity aids when you have to revert to the command-line tools. I sure hope noone gives Phillipe the impression that the integrated environment doesn't help sell the Turbo language products! John Hardin hardin%hpindda@hplabs.hp.com ----------