Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing
by turboturb on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @06:07PM
(#14905844)
In my part of the world, we used the Borland compilers for MS-DOS, Turbo C and Turbo C++. Turbo Assembler and Turbo Pascal was also popular.
Never heard of Zortech C++ before
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing
by WalterBright on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @06:30PM
(#14906058)
Borland decided to develop TC++ because of the success of ZTC++. (I know some of the people involved.) Before ZTC++, C++ was a niche language, and Borland was having great success with Turbo Pascal. ZTC++ came out in 1987, and TC++ in 1990.
After the success of ZTC++ and TC++, Microsoft changed direction and decided to develop a C++ compiler, too. I heard (but was never able to confirm) that Microsoft had earlier been developing their own object oriented extensions to C called C*.
Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing
by p0nce on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @08:01AM
(#14909787)
Coming from Turbo Pascal TC++ was a bit underwhelming. When I tried it didn't colour syntax, there was those weird #include and compin=ling felt so slow. So my first contact with C was pretty negative :\
Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing
by IncRnd on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @11:21PM
(#14907677)
ZTC was a fantastic compiler, that is until it was purchased by Symantec, renamed, and become slow and bloated.
I could even say something similar about turbo c vs turbo c++, but that was more due to the language issues with c++ vs c.