undefined | Better HN

0 pointsspamatica2y ago0 comments

And 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.

0 comments

petepete2y ago

The debugging experience I had in Delphi 6-7 was still streets ahead of what I use today in Ruby.

fuzztester2y 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).

cylinder7142y ago

Things That Turbo Pascal is Smaller Than

https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html

fuzztester2y ago

And it (initially at least) cost $50 vs. a few hundred dollars for other compilers of that period, like MS Pascal.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

petepete2y ago

The debugging experience I had in Delphi 6-7 was still streets ahead of what I use today in Ruby.

fuzztester2y 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).

cylinder7142y ago

Things That Turbo Pascal is Smaller Than

https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html

fuzztester2y ago

And it (initially at least) cost $50 vs. a few hundred dollars for other compilers of that period, like MS Pascal.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse