Top
Best
New

Posted by andsoitis 6 hours ago

They don't make 'em like that any more: Borland Turbo Pascal 7(kevinboone.me)
172 points | 94 commentspage 3
PeterStuer 3 hours ago|
Maybe unfair, but at the time I had to do a project in Turbo Pascal. Up 'till then I had been using Think Pascal on the Mac. There was no comparison. I felt like I was trown back a decade. Not that the raw capability was that different, but boy, the UX. I hated it.
prmph 4 hours ago||
Oh those were the days, I remember developing my first non-trivial piece of software (an international checkers game), while still a student, with Turbo Pascal. It run to more than a thousand lines of basically the Minimax algorithm plus various optimizations (alpha beta pruning, quiescent extensions, etc)

I have fond memories of the language, the IDE, libs like TurboVision, ObjectWindows, etc... And fun times with the demos TVChess and OwlChess, which gave me inspiration.

barelysapient 4 hours ago||
Man, I have so many good memories as 9 or 10 year old kid writing Turbo Pascal 7.

The terminal IDE that it came with, if you can call it that, was ahead of its time.

ivolimmen 4 hours ago||
I used Borland OWL under Windows at school. I moved to Java later on and felt the sting on the last line...
pjmlp 4 hours ago||
I can definitely vouch for Turbo Pascal, having learnt it before C was definitely a good school that strongly typed languages doesn't hinder systems programming, nor higher level ergonomics.
evrydayhustling 3 hours ago||
TP 7 you say?? That's the one that made me quit - they could pry the blue ascii IDE out of my cold, dead (high schooler) hands
egorfine 5 hours ago||
> Windows 3.1 [] not that there were many alternatives at that time

OS/2 was more popular than Windows 3.1.

Update: or maybe it wasn't. Seems like different bubbles had different mainstream OS.

linuxhiker 5 hours ago||
Oh man, the good old days. Running Windows apps in OS/2 and having OS/2 run them faster because it was true 32bit.
wolfi1 4 hours ago|||
OS/2 more popular, not in my part of Europe, although it had its fan base. there were even OS/2 (Warp) freebie cd-roms at the time. I was quite fond of it, but Win 95 killed it
pjmlp 4 hours ago|||
It certainly wasn't in Europe, plus it required more expensive hardware.

Back in 1992, it would had cost me about an extra 500 euros on today's money.

huhtenberg 3 hours ago|||
OS/2 was _incredibly_ rare UI- and UX-wise. Very frustrating to use. As if they copied Windows, but somehow copied only 80% of it with some really common bits missing.
egorfine 1 hour ago||
Hindsight is 20/20 though
AnimalMuppet 5 hours ago||
Source? That's sure not the way I remember it. I don't think I ever saw OS/2 outside of in computer stores. I don't think I ever saw a single customer actually using it, either professionally or on a home computer.

Sure, that's anecdote. Do you have data?

SoftTalker 5 hours ago|||
OS/2 was somewhat popular in corporate settings that were already "IBM shops." And I saw a bit of it in academia/scientific workplaces.

Never knew anyone who ran it at home.

svennek 4 hours ago||
I ran it at home as a teenager, as I got a free Warp cd at a store (when they cancelled the product). Ran it for a few days, then went back to windows (95 likely) and later linux....
egorfine 5 hours ago|||
Nah, no data. Too lazy to dig around. I vividly remember that in my bubble OS/2 was running everywhere. Literally everybody used it, me included. We considered Windows a joke. Some networking software that we used (Fidonet) was literally OS/2 only.

But then I remember how OS/2 was dying a slow death while Windows 95 rose.

So yes, an anecdote it is.

AnimalMuppet 4 hours ago||
Well, I asked, because I'm also too lazy to dig around for data. So, it's hard for me to complain...

[Edit: All right, I did a very superficial digging, and didn't get an apples-to-apples comparison. But it said that OS/2 sold 2.5 million desktop and 340,000 server versions in 1996. Windows 3.1 sold over 3 million copies within the first three months of its release in 1992. So by 1996, OS/2 may have been more popular than Windows 3.1, because the Windows world had moved on to Win95.]

flomo 2 hours ago||
IBM did a ton of consumer advertising for OS/2 while Windows 95 was delayed. (There even was an OS/2 Warp college bowl game.) So they moved some copies, but it probably mostly just people like me messing around.
BorisMelnik 5 hours ago||
great writeup, fun reminder windows 3.1 sat on top of dos
egorfine 5 hours ago||
TPC.EXE /C

never forget

ulfw 4 hours ago|
Never been a big Pascal fan (though learned and used it back in the day) but i learned C and built my first Win16 and Win32 Apps for Windows 3.x and Windows 95 in Borland Turbo C(++). That was truly magical a time!

The printed documentation alone was half a meter long.

More comments...