3 ms·
For many people it was the first language they learned, which I think explains most of it. But the tooling was also very fast from a latency perspective, even o
by MobiusHorizons 3y ago
For many people it was the first language they learned, which I think explains most of it. But the tooling was also very fast from a latency perspective, even on the slow hardware of the time, which tends to make for magical memorable experiences.
- spamatica 3y agoAnd also incredibly small. Turbo Pascal 2.0 had an IDE with compiler and debugger in a binary less than 60kb (if the info I found googling is true). Of course nowhere near the capabilities of modern environments but state of the art at the time.
- petepete 3y agoThe debugging experience I had in Delphi 6-7 was still streets ahead of what I use today in Ruby.
- fuzztester 3y ago>Turbo Pascal 2.0 had an IDE with compiler and debugger in a binary less than 60kb (if the info I found googling is true). Turbo Pascal 3.0 had an IDE with compiler and debugger in a binary less than 40kb (if the info I found googling is true).
- cylinder714 3y agoThings That Turbo Pascal is Smaller Than https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html
- fuzztester 3y agoAnd it (initially at least) cost $50 vs. a few hundred dollars for other compilers of that period, like MS Pascal.