From: AndrewJ Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Odp: Warning : if (x=y) Message-ID: References: <8pd7q6$ljs$2 AT info DOT cyf-kr DOT edu DOT pl> <8pdc2s$1b6$2 AT news DOT luth DOT se> <8pfrln$mbq$1 AT info DOT cyf-kr DOT edu DOT pl> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 58 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:41:08 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.42.120.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse AT home DOT net X-Trace: news3.rdc1.on.home.com 968719268 24.42.120.18 (Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:41:08 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:41:08 PDT Organization: Excite AT Home - The Leader in Broadband To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 13:36:44 +0200, "Rafał Maj" wrote: > >AndrewJ wrote : >> On 9 Sep 2000 12:57:00 GMT, Martin Str|mberg >wrote: >> >> >: I have use Turbo Pascal for over 6 years, so now in C++ I'm often >writing >> >> Hahahahahahahaha.... sorry... Pascal... hahahahaha... >> > >1) In Poland (country in central Europ ;) ) Turbo Pascal is used in all >schools for lerning programming. I know what Poland is. At the risk of starting a flame... I'm Canadian, not American (not implying anything, just that Canucks seem to know more about Europe than /most/ Americans). >2) 6 years ago, on my 286 16 Hz it was quite difficult to compile anything >in C++ ;) Fair enough. >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. Be that as it may, TP was written to be fast, but (IIRC) not a very aggressive optimizer. Same with the Borland C compilers. GCC/GPP oto, are very good optimizers, but that takes time. >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... Yup. Although I have seen some pretty neat things done in (Borland) Pascal. >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 ? ;) Heh... I get that feeling when I go back to BC++ 3.1 every now and then (to test compiler portability). >Meany techers in AGH high-school (informatics, robotics etc...) still writes >their programs in... Basic (normal, not Visual) :))) Ugh. >P.S. in what language was Windows 95 written ? I think that most in C / C++, >right ? AFAIK, it's C and assembler. I don't believe they used C++ for it. OS/2 was C and asm, so it makes sense that Windows was as well. -- AndrewJ