I'm rather bemused by this, as it's targeting a subset of Turbo Pascal 5.5 while emulating the Turbo Pascal 1.0 UI. I used Turbo Pascal 1.0 on CP/M-80, and Turbo Pascal 1.0 through 4.0 (or thereabouts) on DOS (and UCSD Pascal on three different systems before that), and it's fascinating looking back at it how the notion of the "IDE" developed an expanded over that time.
The IDE shown here is, as I say, pretty much the Turbo Pascal 1.0 IDE...and it truly was an IDE. Being able to run your code with a keystroke or two—and then to see your next syntax error in the editor—it was mindblowing.
I bought a copy of Turbo Pascal 1.0 for DOS at the West Coast Computer Faire, where Borland had a little booth. Still is the most productive IDE I have ever used; that sucker was insanely fast. Of course, programming is a lot more complex today, but in 1984, that was magic.
I got my first copy about that time. I'd just recently gotten a KayPro 4 (a CP/M-80 computer), and had been playing with Basic and couple of other languages that came with it; and then I saw an ad for Turbo Pascal in Profiles, the KayPro magazine. I'd used UCSD Pascal a lot at that time, and the screen shot looked—well, not the same, but reminiscent. The cost was $49.95 (IIRC) for a real Pascal compiler, at a time when compilers were usually hundreds of dollars. I ordered a copy immediately (that is, in the next five minutes), and when it showed up in my mail box it felt like Christmas.
Yes, it only changed on Turbo Pascal 5, Turbo Pascal 6 brought the Turbo Vision revamp, Turbo Pascal for Windows 1.5 the IDE experience into Windows 3.x, and it finalizing with Turbo Pascal 7 bringing some editor improvements to Turbo Vision based IDE.
I used to have a 3.5" HD floppy with that classical editor shown here, with MS-DOS 3.3, and a couple of other utilities, to plug into the computers on the high school computer lab.
The IDE shown here is, as I say, pretty much the Turbo Pascal 1.0 IDE...and it truly was an IDE. Being able to run your code with a keystroke or two—and then to see your next syntax error in the editor—it was mindblowing.