Hello Timo!

Wednesday April 03 1996 21:56, Timo Maier wrote to Paul West:

 PW>> I guess I'll have to take another look at VP.  I was hoping SP
 PW>> would be the answer.
 TM> SP does look a little like Win* to me. Tons of features nobody really
 TM> needs, and the things you really need do not work as they should. (:

I've used just about every feature in SP..  Most are quite useful
(compaired to Win where none of it is useful) And the basic stuff works
quite well for my purposes.

Besides, Doesn't OS/2 have tons of things people don't really need?

It's still good to have them there, because eventually, Someone WILL need it.

(as opposed to Win where the functions there will never be needed, Like in
Microsoft publisher, the ability to print paper airplanes.. and only 2 at
that.. both of which don't fly :)

 TM> I'm using VP now for about 8 (?) month - I really love the
 TM> (Borland-)way VP behaves. VP produces really small and fast code, and
 TM> as a former BP-User, I'm used to the IDE. The only thing I miss is the
 TM> online-help for the (whole?) OS/2 API - but I still have to use the
 TM> beta #003 ):

The problem..  The Borlandish implemetation is very lax and closer to C (IE
more bugs can get thru)

The one thing i'd like to see in SP is a Text-mode IDE..

The only place that SP is behind VP in is the size of the result code
(which is being worked on) and the debugger (Which i never need in SP
anyway!)

Keith

... We're from the law firm of Warner, Warner, Warner, and Mime...
--- GED/2 2.50 UNREG