Nostalgia ain't what it used to be...
-
I know what you mean. About thirty years ago, I was working on the VDT software for a Telecoms testing suite: there were four of us in the team doing the VDT, 10 or so doing the presentation stuff at the computer end (two mainframes: one DB, one test, with integration and control via the VDT), another dozen doing the hardware interfacing to the line test equipment. Gawd knows how many managers... And the company it was all going to work for got a suggestion from a test department employee who was fed up with the manual system. Suggesting that a ZX Spectrum could handle it pretty easily, and he had a boy who could write the code... :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
OriginalGriff wrote:
Suggesting that a ZX Spectrum could handle it pretty easily
And he probably was right about that part... :-D
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
-
Because QuickC was (possibly the first, certainly the first I met) integrated IDE: editor, compiler, and debugger in a single package, and that meant you didn't have to faff about switching apps and building make files. And the documentation was one (F1) key away! :-D Prior to QuickC I was using vi, and compiling C on unix... :~ Or EDLIN on PC. Ouch! Later I moved to Brief (the Programmers Editor) - which had a thicker manual than 123 and DOS put together! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
No Turbo Pascal? :wtf: In college I had some classes that used VAX Pascal and others that used Turbo Pascal. My first introduction to C was with Whitesmith's C on a VAX, but later I got to use Turbo C, never Quick C. All the C I did on paying jobs (1994-2002) was VAX or DEC C; none of those toy compilers. :cool:
-
I posted yesterday[^] about someone trying to learn with archaic tools, and that lead to finding QuickC for Dos on an abandonware site. I used to love that program! And yes, it does run in DosBox. Good things: 1) It's quick. Compilation is slower than I remember: for a really tiny app it spends a lot of time linking. But it loads and unloads practically instantly, much, much faster than VS. 2) The help is miles better than VS. Put it like this: it works. It could use some clarification - for example
strcpydoesn't tell you which is the source and which the destination. 3) 16 bit integers! Bad things: 1) I'd forgotten how damn limited C is! And how long it takes to get anything done with standard libraries instead of a framework doing it all behind the scenes. I want my classes back! 2) Only 21 lines of code on screen at any one time, and only 80 chars wide. 3) Copy and Paste are the old style "CTRL+INS" and "SHIFT+INS" (I'd forgotten those, but they still work in Win7!) 4) Um. That's it. Perhaps I won't use it in anger again (I mean, when am I going to need a 16 bit application?) but it brings back a lot of memories - some of them good. Anyone else remember this one?Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
My nostalgia[^] seems to be a lot better :D I still enjoy those! (the actual good old ones, not (all of) the newer they have nowadays)...
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
} -
Because QuickC was (possibly the first, certainly the first I met) integrated IDE: editor, compiler, and debugger in a single package, and that meant you didn't have to faff about switching apps and building make files. And the documentation was one (F1) key away! :-D Prior to QuickC I was using vi, and compiling C on unix... :~ Or EDLIN on PC. Ouch! Later I moved to Brief (the Programmers Editor) - which had a thicker manual than 123 and DOS put together! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
Yes, it was a nice IDE and amazing in those days of EDLIN and Vi.
-
I posted yesterday[^] about someone trying to learn with archaic tools, and that lead to finding QuickC for Dos on an abandonware site. I used to love that program! And yes, it does run in DosBox. Good things: 1) It's quick. Compilation is slower than I remember: for a really tiny app it spends a lot of time linking. But it loads and unloads practically instantly, much, much faster than VS. 2) The help is miles better than VS. Put it like this: it works. It could use some clarification - for example
strcpydoesn't tell you which is the source and which the destination. 3) 16 bit integers! Bad things: 1) I'd forgotten how damn limited C is! And how long it takes to get anything done with standard libraries instead of a framework doing it all behind the scenes. I want my classes back! 2) Only 21 lines of code on screen at any one time, and only 80 chars wide. 3) Copy and Paste are the old style "CTRL+INS" and "SHIFT+INS" (I'd forgotten those, but they still work in Win7!) 4) Um. That's it. Perhaps I won't use it in anger again (I mean, when am I going to need a 16 bit application?) but it brings back a lot of memories - some of them good. Anyone else remember this one?Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
“Ya remember...when we were kids...how good the jellied bugs used to taste? And there were those long rolls of paper with food stains on them. (You could get two thousand yards for a nickel!) And then there were those little round hard things that would explode in your mouth and blow your lips off... Oh! And the cold pork fat bars with the carpet tacks! Boy, they don’t make stuff like that any more... These days it’s all goddamn chemicals!”
(In remembrance of Bernard Kliban)
(This message is programming you in ways you cannot detect. Be afraid.)
-
Because QuickC was (possibly the first, certainly the first I met) integrated IDE: editor, compiler, and debugger in a single package, and that meant you didn't have to faff about switching apps and building make files. And the documentation was one (F1) key away! :-D Prior to QuickC I was using vi, and compiling C on unix... :~ Or EDLIN on PC. Ouch! Later I moved to Brief (the Programmers Editor) - which had a thicker manual than 123 and DOS put together! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
I still "relapse" back to BRIEF emulation on Visual Slick Edit when I want to get something complicated done quickly in a text editor.
-
Because QuickC was (possibly the first, certainly the first I met) integrated IDE: editor, compiler, and debugger in a single package, and that meant you didn't have to faff about switching apps and building make files. And the documentation was one (F1) key away! :-D Prior to QuickC I was using vi, and compiling C on unix... :~ Or EDLIN on PC. Ouch! Later I moved to Brief (the Programmers Editor) - which had a thicker manual than 123 and DOS put together! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
Oh yes, BRIEF was brilliant. You could even go 50 line mode. The macro language was the bomb. Wonder why they never moved over to a Windows version?
-
Oh yes, BRIEF was brilliant. You could even go 50 line mode. The macro language was the bomb. Wonder why they never moved over to a Windows version?
Oh yes. I liked the C extension language (although it was a little complex). And you could set up execution of a makefile, and ... In some ways it's still better than the editor in VS - I really miss being able to open multiple files (or even multiple views on the same file) in the "edit space" of VS. I know you can open a "second window on the same file, but it's not the same... :sigh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
I posted yesterday[^] about someone trying to learn with archaic tools, and that lead to finding QuickC for Dos on an abandonware site. I used to love that program! And yes, it does run in DosBox. Good things: 1) It's quick. Compilation is slower than I remember: for a really tiny app it spends a lot of time linking. But it loads and unloads practically instantly, much, much faster than VS. 2) The help is miles better than VS. Put it like this: it works. It could use some clarification - for example
strcpydoesn't tell you which is the source and which the destination. 3) 16 bit integers! Bad things: 1) I'd forgotten how damn limited C is! And how long it takes to get anything done with standard libraries instead of a framework doing it all behind the scenes. I want my classes back! 2) Only 21 lines of code on screen at any one time, and only 80 chars wide. 3) Copy and Paste are the old style "CTRL+INS" and "SHIFT+INS" (I'd forgotten those, but they still work in Win7!) 4) Um. That's it. Perhaps I won't use it in anger again (I mean, when am I going to need a 16 bit application?) but it brings back a lot of memories - some of them good. Anyone else remember this one?Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
Dare I show my age here :-) What about ANSI C & ISO Pascal on a 32k BBC Model B Micro, using Wordstar as the text editor!! Now that was real programming... unless you want to get down and dirty with 6502 & Z80 hex opcodes. Shawty
-
I posted yesterday[^] about someone trying to learn with archaic tools, and that lead to finding QuickC for Dos on an abandonware site. I used to love that program! And yes, it does run in DosBox. Good things: 1) It's quick. Compilation is slower than I remember: for a really tiny app it spends a lot of time linking. But it loads and unloads practically instantly, much, much faster than VS. 2) The help is miles better than VS. Put it like this: it works. It could use some clarification - for example
strcpydoesn't tell you which is the source and which the destination. 3) 16 bit integers! Bad things: 1) I'd forgotten how damn limited C is! And how long it takes to get anything done with standard libraries instead of a framework doing it all behind the scenes. I want my classes back! 2) Only 21 lines of code on screen at any one time, and only 80 chars wide. 3) Copy and Paste are the old style "CTRL+INS" and "SHIFT+INS" (I'd forgotten those, but they still work in Win7!) 4) Um. That's it. Perhaps I won't use it in anger again (I mean, when am I going to need a 16 bit application?) but it brings back a lot of memories - some of them good. Anyone else remember this one?Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
OriginalGriff wrote:
- Only 21 lines of code on screen at any one time, and only 80 chars wide.
You can see 46 lines of code in 50-line mode (start with /h switch) ! No way round width limit. I still have this on my pc, runs under XP without needing Dosbox.
-
I posted yesterday[^] about someone trying to learn with archaic tools, and that lead to finding QuickC for Dos on an abandonware site. I used to love that program! And yes, it does run in DosBox. Good things: 1) It's quick. Compilation is slower than I remember: for a really tiny app it spends a lot of time linking. But it loads and unloads practically instantly, much, much faster than VS. 2) The help is miles better than VS. Put it like this: it works. It could use some clarification - for example
strcpydoesn't tell you which is the source and which the destination. 3) 16 bit integers! Bad things: 1) I'd forgotten how damn limited C is! And how long it takes to get anything done with standard libraries instead of a framework doing it all behind the scenes. I want my classes back! 2) Only 21 lines of code on screen at any one time, and only 80 chars wide. 3) Copy and Paste are the old style "CTRL+INS" and "SHIFT+INS" (I'd forgotten those, but they still work in Win7!) 4) Um. That's it. Perhaps I won't use it in anger again (I mean, when am I going to need a 16 bit application?) but it brings back a lot of memories - some of them good. Anyone else remember this one?Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
I remember it very well, I still use CTRL+INS and SHIFT+INS for copying and pasting these days!
