Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/09/10/12:25:05
>1) In Poland (country in central Europ ;) ) Turbo Pascal is used in all
>schools for lerning programming.
Well, IIRC, that is what is was made for
>2) 6 years ago, on my 286 16 Hz it was quite difficult to compile anything
>in C++ ;)
CC is crap. C rules :) The speed depends on the compiler, of course. Kinda
cruel
to measure the compilingtimes...
>3) Turbo Pascal works now on my 525 Celeron faster ten C++... 2000 lines
>program will compile and build in about 0.5 s in TP, and about 6 s in C++.
>When you compile program often, this difference is important.
Use .o-files and save yourself some time. IIRC, Pascal was almost lacking
this
in standard. Unsure, didn't use TP much myself.
>But I agree that it's imposible to write bigger programs in TP, especialy
in
>standart (not Borland) version, with 64 Kb code segment limit. Ofcourse, C
>is much more flexible, portable, etc...
Yeah, C might give less code as well that way
>IMHO isn't so bad after all. It's useful for writting _small_ programs, and
>maybe for testing algoritms.
>After 6 years of using TP now it is something like... old friend maybe ?
;)
Worked with it for a year and could in no way get used to those :'s. Maybe
I should have get a book and not just learning from the manual? ;)
>Meany techers in AGH high-school (informatics, robotics etc...) still
writes
>their programs in... Basic (normal, not Visual) :)))
Basic is good in the same way as assembler. You don't have to bother as
much about the structure and it's simpler for simpler things. C sux at
strings IMHO.
>=================
>P.S. in what language was Windows 95 written ? I think that most in C /
C++,
>right ?
IIRC, also Pascal, assembler and those extras might also use VB etc.
- Raw text -