What's the difference between Turbo C++ and C/C++

[Elena]

Hi,

I am so confused over the number of versions out there from Borland. I have Turbo C++ 3.0, that came with TCWIN 4.5. There is also a C/C++ 4.52, which is supposed to be the "full version". What does that mean? I have also heard people say not to use the low cost versions (whatever that means).

I am trying to learn C/C++ with the ultimate goal of programming in DOS. What version should I use? And, at this late date, how do I get that version?

I appreciate someone clearing this up for me.

Thanks,
Elena

 

[adholioshake]

'Turbo C++' is just the name Borland gave to their C++ compiler, it is not any difference in the C(++) language. It does give different C 'flavours' though, such as ANSI and Ritchie. I understand that all the Turbo C(++) compilers were wrote to work under DOS with a console IDE, but I could be mistaken here. You should then be able to use the Turbo C that you have.

If you need to get a copy of other compilers, try some ftp sites or search for Turbo C compiler downloads in C. I'm sure that Borland probably have an option for downloading older software from their site somewhere.

Failing this, try looking at second hand booksales or visit a local library for books such as "Learn Borland C in 24 days" etc. Most often these books will have that kind of software with them, and if its an old book the software will be older.

If you still can't get the compiler you want, try obtaining a different compiler. gcc is a good compiler, and I believe it is free to download.

Hope some of that is useful...

 

[Elena]

Thanks,

I have done some more exploring of the subject, and I found that there are two different Borland C's. There is straight Borland C/C++ and then there is a Turbo C/C++ that is far less expensive. Does anybody know the difference?

I am trying to compile some code that has some assembly code in it. The person that sent it to me said that it compiles fine with Borland C++ v 4.52, but I can't seem to compile it with Turbo C++ 3.0. I am wondering if there is a difference between the two, or if there is some other reason it won't compile. I am using TASM 3.1.

Thanks,
Elena

 

[zeitghost]

Borland C++ 4.52 was the last 16 bit capable compiler from Borland.

I use it myself for generating 16 bit applications for dos and win3.1. (Hangs head in shame).

Turbo C++ 3.0 is an earlier compiler (I think).

I've had problems compiling code with assembler instruction in the C code too.

4.52 was available on magazine disks in the UK about 5 or 6 years ago.

It may well have capabilities that are missing from TC++ 3.0.

rgds
Zeit.

 

[2ffat]

Zeitghost is correct about the Borland vs. Turbo aspects of the compilers. One other thing to remember is both of these compilers came out before the last C++ Standard was . . . well . . . standardized. The current compiler ver. 5.x is available from free download from Borland. This version, while compatable with the Standard, won't compile 16 bit apps. This shouldn't be a problem unless you want your apps to run in DOS/Win3.x

AFAIK, older TASM compilers won't run correctly on Pentium and newer chips.


James P. Cottingham

^{There's no place like 127.0.0.1.
There's no place like 127.0.0.1.}

 

[Elena]

2ffat,

Thanks for the input. The problem is, I do want to write programs for DOS. In fact, I have to. I can't figure out where to get the Borland C++ 4.52, though. I did find TASM 5.0 ( I think that is the latest). Maybe that will work with Turbo C++ 3.0. I'll give it a try tomorrow. I saw a version 4.52 on Ebay, but I don't know which one I should buy. There is one for $129, and there is one for $39 that comes with database tools. Doesn't make sense to me. I don't think they are the same.

Thanks,
Elena

 

[lionelhill]

Blast from the past: Tasm 3.0 (I think) and Turbo Pascal 6.0 run fine on my Pentium 1-and-a-bit-so-far-as-I-know GHz machine. I'd be surprised if Borland's C-based products are "worse" than their Pascal based products. The dos applications they make also run fine in the dos-box of XP.

 

[zeitghost]

I don't think I would pay that sort of money for an obsolete compiler.

Keep looking regularly on ebay. One will turn up eventually.

I got the compiler manuals for 4.52 for about 15$.

rgds
Zeit.

 

[lionelhill]

Some people on e-bay are more optimistic than others?
My ancient tasm is actually tasm 4.0, not 3.0.

 

[zeitghost]

My ancient Tasms are 1.0 and 2.0, so they are ancienter than yours Lionelhill.

I've also got the extremely ancient MASM 1.0 that uses fcbs and I tend to use it far more than MASM 6.11.

Funny that.

rgds
Zeit.