|
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> santosh said:
<regarding relevance of Turbo C v2.01>
>> As far as checking code for portability to 16 bit systems, yes it's
>> somewhat useful there, but that not a very compelling advantage to
>> use it, IMO.
>
> Well, it doesn't hurt. More compellingly, though, are these
> advantages: the IDE is dead easy to use; and the compiler is
> astoundingly quick on modern machines. (It was pretty darn quick even
> on 8086s.)
And another major problem is that you are pretty much forced to use
Windows. Turbo C doesn't work properly under DOSEmu, from my personal
experience. Now most IT training centres already have loads of Windows
machines, so it's not a major problem for them, but many interested
individuals are increasingly using something like Linux, FreeBSD or
OpenSolaris, and Turbo C is pretty much out of question.
So in summary I would say that Turbo C is useful if you already have a
Windows installation and you don't, for some reason or other, like
large implementations like MSVC or Cygwin, or you are particular about
checking your code under a 16 bit implementation (not many do this,
IME), or are developing for DOS or some DOS based embedded devices
(again very rare).
I agree that it's a marvellous piece of programming, but then so were
many DOS/CP-M programs of that era.
|
|