On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> writes: >> But out of 20MB, I easily had *space* for a compiler. The problem was >> compilation time. I could mess around in BASIC with reasonable >> turnaround times; I could mess around in DEBUG with excellent >> turnaround times. Doing even the tiniest work in C meant delays long >> enough to go do something else. > > Which compiler did you use? Turbo C was quite fast even on the 8088, > and Turbo Pascal was even faster: > > http://prog21.dadgum.com/47.html > > explains why Pascal was faster to compile than C.
Back then? Microsoft Quick C, which disposed of the awkward part in the title and thus didn't need to be quick anywhere else. It was the only compiler I had access to. Later on, I used the Borland C/C++ compiler, a Windows program (which I ran under OS/2) and my first-ever IDE with actual syntax highlighting and stuff. I didn't really appreciate it at the time - thought the coloration and bold and stuff were pretty useless. Took me another few years to come to value that as a feature. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
