News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing. Parent comment

Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing by WalterBright on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @09:18PM (#14907101)
There were probably 30 C compilers for the IBM PC. Turbo C didn't appear until 1987, it was quite a latecomer. C was immensely popular on the C before then.

Borland produced Turbo C not to introduce C to the PC, but because C was so dominant on that platform. After all, why would they have done that after being so successful with Turbo Pascal?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing by WalterBright on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @09:25PM (#14907139)
The Aug 1986 issue of Dr. Dobb's lists:

* Aztec C

* C86

* Datalight C (mine!)

* DeSmet C

* Eco-C88

* Hot C

* IBM C

* Lattice C

* C Prog Sys

* Let's C

* High C

* Microsoft C

* Mix X

* Toolworks C

* Whitesmiths C

* Wizard C

PC Tech Journal reviewed 8 C compilers for DOS in their Nov-Dec 1983 issue, though I don't have a copy of it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing by pjmlp on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @02:27AM (#14908375)
The majority of them unknown or impossible to buy in the 1983's reality of Portugal and Spain, as I mention in another comment.
[ Parent | on HN ]