Thread: Faster way of printing to the screen

Originally Posted by Elysia

I'm sure you have to battle with it, but you keep bringing it up to others, about using Turbo C/C++ and presenting a lot of old code.
Not usually a good thing.

I think that those of us who have done this long enough to have used those tools, don't see any point in forgetting everything we learned. The more things change the more they stay the same. We have more bits, more RAM, more storage, yet we continue to write code that's just as crappy as in the "old" days.

A faster processor just means that things can go wrong faster.

We all know that Turbo C is "obsolete" and yet I used it six months ago -- because it was the best tool for the job at hand. Am I seriously getting old enough to be annoyed at people who think the past is worthless?

I'm not trying to suggest that using Turbo C and writing directly to the frame buffer is the right solution to the OP's problem -- I think that would be ridiculous. It just got me thinking.

Originally Posted by brewbuck

We all know that Turbo C is "obsolete" and yet I used it six months ago -- because it was the best tool for the job at hand. Am I seriously getting old enough to be annoyed at people who think the past is worthless?

The past worthless? Never.
In such case, C++ would be retired because Java & C# & Co exists.
No, I do agree with you that something never is not always the best...

I'm not trying to suggest that using Turbo C and writing directly to the frame buffer is the right solution to the OP's problem -- I think that would be ridiculous. It just got me thinking.

It gets me thinking since it's mentioned such a lot. It's old and it's very standards compliant, so it's the least I would like to suggest if it can be helped.
*shrug* That is why I asked.