Re: C++ vs. C#
"r norman" <r_s_norman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jd2pu49sq6hau0v4f6qlu8b606m0oa5b46@4ax.com...
Once again with the "if" and the "I don't think"! I was earning good
money writing applications forthe Z80 using Microsoft CP/M-based MASM
and LINK. The applications were for embedded systems but all the
development tools were CP/M. When you say you don't think Microsoft
is associated with CP/M then you simply do not know the history which
I tried to relate. MASM and LINK were really the most important
development tools and Microsoft BASIC was the big reason that children
like you and your friend could buy and run Apples and TRS-80.
OK, thanks for the info that Microsoft offered tools for CP/M. I'm not sure
MS had anything to do with Applesoft BASIC, but BASIC was really great.
My allusion to the distinction between work machines and toy/game
machines was simply what the world of work considered them to be.
Mainframe and minicomputers of the day were also not graphics oriented
but used dumb terminal device (character oriented displays), as did
CP/M. Business database and word processor needs did not involve
graphics. That Apple emphasized color and graphics and used a TV set
as a display, something that rendered text very difficult to read, was
a big part of that distinction. Pretty color pictures on the TV is
not what business managers considered when buying a computer to get
work done.
I suppose you're right. I recall Apple only displayed 40 columns across the
screen unless an extender board was purchased. TRS-80 had 80 columns, which
is very business oriented.
My point, admittedly written with some hyperbole and tongue in cheek,
was that Microsoft was around and very successful and was a leader in
development tools before Borland ever existed and is still around and
very successful and is still a leader in development tools now that
Borland is gone. As I indicated in another post about operating
systems, the quality of the tools is not always the issue.
Well, I disagree. The longevity of a company is suspect if during lengthy
periods of its history, it has faltered badly to competition. I think it's
great they turned it around and today are still a force to be reckoned with
(though a declining one, IMO), but I would rather use world class products
from a company whose lifespan is 5 years than mediocre products from a
company whose lifespan is 30+ years. I have a problem to solve, I want the
best tools, who cares how long the company has been around (other than for
support issues, which we aren't disscussing).
Thanks,
David