NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/os/msdos/programm/12014

Text File | 1993-01-12 | 6.6 KB | 132 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!news.edu.tw!cc.ntnu.edu.tw!news!Net.nthu.edu.tw!Uz.nthu.edu.tw!kgphuann
From: [e-mail] (Kho-Guan Phuann (LING G794709) TEL.[phone])
Subject: Turbo C++'s poor manuals
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: National Tsing Hua University (HsinChu)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:39:07 GMT
Lines: 121

[e-mail] (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kho-Guan Phuann (LING G794709) TEL.[phone]) writes:
> >[e-mail] (Dale DePriest) writes:
> >> ......
> >> The discussion mentions Borland C++.  You may not know that this is
> >> also known as Turbo C/C++.  The Turbo version is adequate to learn on
> >                              ?????????????????????????????????????????
> >> and is quite a bit cheaper.  The full Borland version provides a full
> >> environment for professional programmers.  The Turbo C can often be
> >> had inexpensively in the used market, going rate about $25, by people
> >> that are moving to C++.  Version 2 is excellent and supports all that
> >> you need to get going.
> >> ......
>
> Turbo C++ and Borland C++ are NOT the same product!  That is like
> saying a Ford Festiva and a Ford Mustang are the same thing.  (Ok,
> so there's probably a better ford than a Mustang, but I'm not a big
> car person -- I hope people get the right idea here)
>
> >    Sorry, I can not but complain here about the poor documents
> >Turbo C++ for DOS provides since the product seems to be overly
> >valued. I bought Turbo C++ for DOS 3.0 by an educational discount.
> >The retailer told me the package is exactly the same as that
> >without discount. Yes, it is *quite a bit cheaper*, but I am rather
>
> The Turbo C++ you bought at a discount is the exact same package
> as the Turbo C++ you could have bought off the shelf without the
> discount.  That is NOT the same as Borland C++, which you could
> probably have purchased at an educational discount (note: I am
> not connected w/ education or Borland, so I cannot promise this,
> but I see no reason it shouldn't be available with an educational
> discount).
>
> >disappointed at finding out that there is only one user's manual
> >in it. They try to include everything in that book, including
> >several hundred pages of C/C++ language tutorial which, though
> >well written, occupie much space. And the most important infor-
> >mation I need such as the IDE, which is appreciated by everybody,
> >is only provided with very few descriptions. It is usually referring
> >the reader to on-line help, but on-line help can only serve well as a
> >reminiscent reference. As a new Turbo C++ user, I need step by step
> >tutorial on all the menu items. I did try to get help from on-line
> >help, but its sections always assume the knowledge of each other
> >circularly. I am always stuck in it.
> >
> >  Some days ago, I borrowed Borland C++ 2.0 from a teacher, and was
>
> Did they get it at an educational discount?  <g>
>
> >impressed by the many manuals packed with it. From the manuals, I
> >learned some very basic technique of using IDE. Yes, money speaks
> >loudest. But isn't it a compiler vendor's obligation to instruct
> >its customers to use its product, especially use its specific
> >features, in an understandable way?
>
> Yes, but teaching how to use the compiler does not entail
> teaching the language.  Many people do not quite understand
> this.  When you buy that Ford Festiva, they don't give you
> a driving class to help you get your drivers license.  Same
> thing here.  You are supposed to know the language already,
> or get that information from an appropriate source.  Their
> only obligation is to teach you to use the compiler.  Setting
> memory models, documenting the library routines, etc.
>
> I think your frustration is caused by unrealistic expectations.


    I think you misunderstand my point. I have never expected
to be thaught to learn the language itself from a compiler's
manuals. As you say, "Their only obligation is to teach you to
use the compiler." This is exactly what I criticized, because
they do not fullfil this only obligation. As another netter,
Mr. Silvernail said:

******************************************************************

And I think that Borland is simply continuing the tradition begun with
the second release of TC++.  My copy (TC++ 1.01) has 4 manuals:  Getting
Started, User's Guide, Programmer's Guide and Library Reference.  When I
went to buy TC++, I noticed the difference between the first and second
editions, and I asked the salesman at Software, Etc. to show me the
difference.  Once I saw, I purchased the first edition.

I've heard from Borland that they "rolled the documentation into the
online system", and that appears to be the case.  But I find it hard to
leaf through online documentation while the computer is doing a 25
minute rebuild.
--
Roy M. Silvernail --  [e-mail] - OR-  cybrspc![e-mail]

**************************************************************************

So in their process of upgrading Turbo C++ from 1.01 through 2.0 to 3.0,
they downgrade their manuals from 4 through 2 to the last only one volume.
And their trying to "enroll the documentation into the online system"
are considered by me to be done badly. People who had ever learned to use
earlier Turbo C++'s IDE from its fuller manuals, and now upgrade to V.3.0
smoothly, may not be able to imagine a new user's astonishment when he
opens the box of Turbo C++ 3.0.  A C++ compiler without a single volume of
Library Reference Manual!?

>
> I would recommend the Borland C++ package over the Turbo C++
> package for anyone who is serious about using C++.  The Turbo C++
> package is a low-cost minimal package, useful if you are already
> taking a C++ course.  The Borland C++ package is much fancier
> with more documentation, additional libraries, and better (faster,
> better optimization) compiler.  I also think that the Turbo C++
> is only for DOS, or only for Windows (one or the other...) but
                               *******
> the Borland C++ can create both types of applications.
>

    I dare not go on to complain about the design of Ms-Window's
interface so as to incur another wave of blame. :-)  Anyway,
Turbo C++ is a nice compiler, I will continue to work under it
for DOS programming, while I am trying to expand my computer
joy to other OS's.

                                                   KhoGuan PhuaN