Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Borland Turbo Assembler Version 5 User's Guide (1996) [pdf]

bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Borland Turbo Assembler Version 5 User's Guide (1996) [pdf]

#51

Post by zwieback »

pfoof wrote: post #7

>Most people think of assembly language as a low-level language. Turbo Assembler, however, provides many of the features of a high-level language (such as abstract data types, and easy interfacing to other languages). The addition of object-oriented data structures gives Turbo Assembler the power to create object-oriented programs as easily as high-level languages while retaining- the speed and flexibility of assembl…

I remember coming across that - we mostly used MASM back in the day but when I found the object-oriented TASM stuff I was very tempted. Didn't really make a whole lot of sense since C++ is already pretty low-level, especially back in the 90s.

The other interesting Borland OO thing was the C++ language extension for OWL (Object Windows Library, an early C++ GUI lib for WIndows) to link windows messages to member functions. It was addictively productive, when we switched over to MFC later on it felt like a step back.

Re: Borland Turbo Assembler Version 5 User's Guide (1996) [pdf]

#52

Post by mistrial9 »

pfoof wrote: post #7

>Most people think of assembly language as a low-level language. Turbo Assembler, however, provides many of the features of a high-level language (such as abstract data types, and easy interfacing to other languages). The addition of object-oriented data structures gives Turbo Assembler the power to create object-oriented programs as easily as high-level languages while retaining- the speed and flexibility of assembl…

I wrote C code with dispatch tables to implement "virtual functions" for structs with method calls .. those were local to a dot-c file, with corresponding external dot-h interfaces defined.. all of that by my own design, for a framework for graphics programming .. in the early 90s. The techniques were known, just not common. Borland had great products, and was killed by "bloody means", by MSFT, in public view.

Re: Borland Turbo Assembler Version 5 User's Guide (1996) [pdf]

#53

Post by jhoechtl »

zozbot234 wrote: post #34
badsectoracula wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is partly fashion (little UI is more "hackerish" after all) and partly lack of exposure (a lot of programmers nowadays who have worked on TUI applications might have little to no exposure to DOS programs of yesteryear). It is technically possible though, as an example here is Free Pascal's text-mode IDE[0] running inside an xterm window under Linux. The IDE uses Free Vision[1], a TUI framework originally b…

Yeah but FPIDE is the exception that proves the rule. Why can't we have a VSCode work-alike in text mode, with LSP, tree-sitter and DAP support? That stuff is even getting added to Emacs these days, so it has a proper free-software pedigree even though it comes from M$.

Isn't that neovim, emacs -nw and helix?

Re: Borland Turbo Assembler Version 5 User's Guide (1996) [pdf]

#54

Post by elteto »

zozbot234 wrote: post #34
badsectoracula wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is partly fashion (little UI is more "hackerish" after all) and partly lack of exposure (a lot of programmers nowadays who have worked on TUI applications might have little to no exposure to DOS programs of yesteryear). It is technically possible though, as an example here is Free Pascal's text-mode IDE[0] running inside an xterm window under Linux. The IDE uses Free Vision[1], a TUI framework originally b…

Yeah but FPIDE is the exception that proves the rule. Why can't we have a VSCode work-alike in text mode, with LSP, tree-sitter and DAP support? That stuff is even getting added to Emacs these days, so it has a proper free-software pedigree even though it comes from M$.

emacs -nw?

Re: Borland Turbo Assembler Version 5 User's Guide (1996) [pdf]

#55

Post by jhoechtl »

pjmlp wrote: post #14
jstgord wrote: post #4

Borland manuals were a pure delight.. as was the speed of Turbo Pascal compilation and the elegance of their text mode windowing object system. I remember scouring all the possible BBS dialup file servers to find a compiler for my first 8086 machine .. I knew there had to be something better than GW Basic .. I could not find a compiler for free, but did happen up on A86 assembler, so got an intro to how the machine r…

Me too, like as it used to be in those days, we could get all kinds of software in Portuguese bazars at the cost of the material being copied. However when I could afford the student editions of Borland products available to high school students, I bought TPW and Turbo C++ 3.1 for Windows, first TPW, and then TC++ an year later.

I think it was already called BC backe then?

Re: Borland Turbo Assembler Version 5 User's Guide (1996) [pdf]

#56

Post by ihatepython »

dwringer wrote: post #47
DefNotMe wrote: post #41

My school teaches C++ on TC++ 3.1, The syllabus for CS hasn't changed since about 20 years. 80586 Pentium is still cutting edge in there.

I encountered this about 10 years ago here in the US. The course seemed to have become a kind of Kobayashi Maru - nobody else in my group ever even managed to get a working installation of the compiler, which we had to do in a Windows XP VM (there was some way of getting a license for a copy of XP but almost nobody in the class seemed to get it to work for some reason).

Personally I don't believe in the no-win situation

Re: Borland Turbo Assembler Version 5 User's Guide (1996) [pdf]

#57

Post by pjmlp »

jhoechtl wrote: post #55
pjmlp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too, like as it used to be in those days, we could get all kinds of software in Portuguese bazars at the cost of the material being copied. However when I could afford the student editions of Borland products available to high school students, I bought TPW and Turbo C++ 3.1 for Windows, first TPW, and then TC++ an year later.

I think it was already called BC backe then?

There were Turbo C++ and Borland C++ variants.

Turbo was something like standard or community cutted down versions.

I am sure of the boxes I still have lying around. :)

Re: Borland Turbo Assembler Version 5 User's Guide (1996) [pdf]

#58

Post by robflynn »

ajuc wrote: post #19
jstgord wrote: post #4

Borland manuals were a pure delight.. as was the speed of Turbo Pascal compilation and the elegance of their text mode windowing object system. I remember scouring all the possible BBS dialup file servers to find a compiler for my first 8086 machine .. I knew there had to be something better than GW Basic .. I could not find a compiler for free, but did happen up on A86 assembler, so got an intro to how the machine r…

I was 14 years old, only ever programmed in Commodore Basic by typing in programs from the manual (in German) without understanding them, didn't understood English much. I got pirated Turbo Pascal 7 and Turbo Basic with included manuals and I've learned programming from them (in a foreign language, with no internet). That's how good they were.

I remember being maybe 13 years old or so and asking my parents for Turbo Pascal for Christmas haha. I think it was Turbo Pascal 3? I eventually upgraded to the nicer one with the windowed system. Good times!

Re: Borland Turbo Assembler Version 5 User's Guide (1996) [pdf]

#59

Post by atombender »

Borland's manuals were fantastic in so many ways, from the typesetting to the organization of the chapters/books. They were, in comparison to many other manuals, both friendly and pragmatic. Look at the "Getting started" part of this manual. The marketing copy is top notch (referencing "hackers and wizards", "blindingly fast programs"), and then just one page later you're running your first program.

One of the formative experiences of my childhood was getting my hands on the Turbo Pascal 5.5 "Object-Oriented Programming Guide" (1989) [1] just before going on a ferry holiday to Germany. It was a relatively slim volume that was separate from the other manuals that came with TP. On that ferry trip I read the book cover to cover, and even started writing programs on paper, since I didn't have a computer with me.

I had learned procedural programming before then, and Pascal's OOP extensions just blew my mind at the time. Looking at the manual now, it's just really well written and laid out.

[1] http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/borland/turbo_pascal/Turbo_Pasc...

Re: Borland Turbo Assembler Version 5 User's Guide (1996) [pdf]

#60

Post by tengwar2 »

1letterunixname wrote: post #8

Borland C++ 3.1 was the epitome of documentation. The retail packaging was about the width of 7 pieces of big box software and it weighed quite a bit more from the "encyclopedia set" it included. The assembler quick reference guide for TASM was better in 3.1 than in either 4 or 5. It was also spiral bound with a white comb. Although updated with features, 4 and 5 reduced the amount of documentation significantly.

I'm not sure if it was that one, but there was one edition of Borland C++ which had a handle on the top of the box containing the manuals, and a safety warning about lifting carefully.
Post reply on HN