Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: rbowman Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Why Python When There Is Perl? Date: 22 Mar 2024 02:08:05 GMT Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <17be420c4f90bfc7$63225$1585792$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> <86sf0l9h6c.fsf@yaxley.in> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net LoiIAcEvqS9wM8pxOu+PigVRTcVE0rZHcZpnDWcnZW8UfVOniz Cancel-Lock: sha1:4IXtlz3og/PriKd/b4EtUNhLzz8= sha256:abRGMMHlnKzhSUb+MICC+IhKXrn504EnDMySxReLvkw= User-Agent: Pan/0.149 (Bellevue; 4c157ba) Bytes: 1501 On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 10:36:35 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Turbo Pascal was better, but I really got into Turbo C. I bought Turbo Pascal for CP/M when it first came out. How could you go wrong for $50? I thought it was broken after the first hello world experiment since I was used to the leisurely BDS C compilations. I never did get Turbo C but I did get the C++/OWL IDE. I liked it and in the early '90s it wasn't clear Microsoft was going to be the 800 pound gorilla. I wasn't that fond of MFC but what are you going to do? In their defense a C++ standard was years in the future so they rolled their own.