News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why has Plan 9 chosen statically linked binaries instead of dynamic ones? (2004). Parent comment

Re:Why has Plan 9 chosen statically linked binaries instead ... by dguaraglia on Friday February 15, 2019 @05:46PM (#19175452)
Really? I have no numbers to back it up, but it felt to me that Visual Studio (and Visual C++/Basic before that) were more popular than the Borland tools.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why has Plan 9 chosen statically linked binaries instead ... by int_19h on Friday February 15, 2019 @09:20PM (#19176600)
Back in those days, Visual Studio was priced a lot higher than Borland offerings - this goes all the way back to DOS, actually. Borland had always priced its developer tools very aggressively compared to the state of the market, and they reaped the benefits. Thus, Turbo Pascal or Turbo C++ used with Turbo Vision was by far the most popular DOS TUI (as opposed to, say, VB for DOS), and OWL/VCL was the most popular Win16/32 framework, if you discount raw Win32 API (of which it was a wrapper).

Visual Basic ate a considerable chunk of Delphi's lunch in the enterprise area, where price was less of an issue, and large dev shops would buy an MSDN subscription anyway. But it was never more popular than Delphi for desktop apps.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why has Plan 9 chosen statically linked binaries instead ... by pjmlp on Friday February 15, 2019 @06:23PM (#19175717)
Not on my geography.

Worldwide, no idea.

[ Parent | on HN ]