3 ms·
I read that, but I'm not convinced it is correct. It is a best ambiguous--development could have gone internal but started with the Lattice codebase. It is also
by johngossman 2y ago
I read that, but I'm not convinced it is correct. It is a best ambiguous--development could have gone internal but started with the Lattice codebase. It is also incorrect at least as to version numbers. MSC 3.0 was the first version that wasn't developed by Lattice, whatever the provenance of the source
- eesmith 2y agoPeter Norton wrote this in 1983: "The Microsoft C compiler has interesting historical roots. Although Microsoft itself works with C, this compiler is not a direct Microsoft product. Instead, it is an adaptation of the famous and highly regarded Lattice C compiler." There are also ads like https://archive.org/details/PC-Mag-1984-09-04/page/n51/mode/2up?q=lattice https://archive.org/details/PC-Mag-1984-09-04/page/n51/mode/... saying "Microsoft C compiler / Includes Lattice C and the MS Librarian". I can't find info about v2 or v3. Edit: https://winworldpc.com/product/microsoft-c-c/2x https://winworldpc.com/product/microsoft-c-c/2x says "Microsoft C 1.0 and 2.0 are a rebranded version of Lifeboat Associates Lattice C", so your doubt seems well founded.
- pjmlp 2y agoAnother historical note, if I remember correctly, Microsoft was the last C compiler vendor on MS-DOS to add C++ support, which happened on Microsoft C/C++ v7.0 release, their last release for MS-DOS as well, before Visual C++ came to be.