🚀 go-pugleaf

>There are more optimizations available in 3.x.  Also, it's now 386
>only code, and will generate 386 specific code.  They even gave a shot
>at register passing, however, it doesn't work as it should and isn't
>worth touting.

I have the Borland 3.0 box in front of me, and it says it will run on
a 286 with 1MB.  Windows programming requires 2MB (I recommend at
least 4MB.)  You may be thinking of Microsoft C 7.0, which will run
only on a 386 and requires DPMI (i.e. the compiler will run under
386Max, which Microsoft gives you, or in a Windows DOS box.)

BC++ 3.1 adds the ability to generate 32 bit math instructions, so your
code gets better performance on a 386 or 486.  Of course, if you want your
program to run on an 8088 or 286, you should not tell the compiler to
generate those instructions.

In addition, BC++ 3.x has a new resource editor (2.0 has Whitewater's
Resource Toolkit, 3.x has Borland's Resource Workshop.  Either of
these will blow away Microsoft's resource editors.)  3.x has WinSight,
a spy tool that blows away Microsoft's Spy, and WinSpector which is
better than Dr. Watson.  Borland has nothing comparable to MS's
Heapwalker or Stress applications and does not ship the debugging
version of Windows.

I suspect that most users of Borland or Microsoft compilers would agree
with the above paragraph.  Now I'll make statements that are more
controversial: Borland has a nicer user interface than Microsoft.  I
would choose BC++ 3.x over MSC/C++ 7.0 any day.

     Bob Alexander                                     boba@pictel.com
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     Organizations don't have opinions; people do.  The above opinions
     do not reflect those of the directors, stockholders, managers, or
     other employees of PictureTel.