home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.magg.net!news
- From: n4mwd@magg.net (Dennis Hawkins)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Does Borland C++ 5.0 still work with normal C???
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 05:46:42 GMT
- Organization: M.A.G. Information Services (MAGG.NET)
- Message-ID: <4ggsie$1fg@dopey.magg.net>
- References: <n4mwd.33.000A228B@magg.net> <4gdkv3$q8a@druid.borland.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: wpb-133.magg.net
- X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
-
- pete@borland.com (Pete Becker) wrote:
-
- >In article <n4mwd.33.000A228B@magg.net>, n4mwd@magg.net says...
- >>
- >>Does anybody know if the new Borland C++ compiler will compile normal C?? In
- >>my opinion, if it doesn't, it is worthless. I recently received a flyer from
- >>Borland and there was no mention of being able to compile C.
-
- >Yes, BC++ 5.0 works with normal C, just like all the previous versions of our
- >C/C++ compiler.
-
- Pete,
- Does BC++5.0 have a switch to set it in pure C mode. I mean,
- can BC++ 5.0 compile this expression:
-
- printf("%ld\n", (long) sizeof 'a');
-
- and produce an EXE that generates '2' for the output. Turbo C 2.0
- does. Turbo C 2.0 was probably the last lean, mean compiling machine
- that Borland has produced. While it may be true that the newer
- compilers provide far more functionality - they are also FATWARE.
-
- For all DOS apps that I develop, TURBO C 2.0 is still my compiler of
- choice. I only wish it did windows, because that is the only reason
- why I went to BC++ 4.0. I feel sorry for all the younger programmers
- who will never know how great TC 2.0 was as it is no longer in
- production.
-
- I wonder if Borland will ever stop discriminating against C people. I
- mean, why can I not get the AppExpert to generate straight C code? Am
- I doing something wrong, or was a pure C AppExpert left out?
-
- I know I sound bitter, but thats only because I am. I don't
- appreciate having C++ rammed down my throat by a company I once
- thought could do no wrong. I still have the original four 360K
- floppies that Borland sent me TURBO C 1.0 on. I was just about their
- 29,000th customer (translation: I ordered mine 2 weeks before it was
- released and I should have ordered it 6 weeks before.). I defended
- Turbo C when my co-workers called it 'Toy C' after an inadvertant
- Microsoft {former} employee publicly called it that on a Compuserve
- forum. He later publicly appologized on the same forum.
-
- I just don't see why Borland has seemingly turned their backs on
- unadulterated C people???? Yes, I know C++ compilers are supposed to
- compile straight C <sort of>. Some programmers, like myself, don't
- like laguages where:
-
- c = a + b;
-
- doesn't necessarily mean add a and b and store result in c. In C++
- you have operator overloading, which means '+' could be doing just
- about anything. You have to search through the whole program for any
- overloading of the '+' operator before you can assume that '+' means
- 'add'.. Yuck!
-
- Does anybody else out there feel the same way I do about C and C++??
-
-
-
- Dennis Hawkins
- n4mwd@amsat.org
-
-