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
----------