🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec31.220017.20342@netcom.com> whedon@netcom.com (Bill Whedon) writes:

| In article <1992Dec30.191610.3685@pony.Ingres.COM> bonobo@Ingres.COM (David Victor) writes:
| >Has anyone out there had much experience with QuickC for Windows?  I was
| >just wondering if I could get an opinion as to its usefulness.  Are there
| >other CASE tools which blow away QuickCase:W?
| >
| I use QCWIN for prototyping prior to full build under MSC/C++ 7.0,
| and have upgraded the QuickCase:W to the full product.  There is no
| better prototyping setup I've found.  There are CASE tools which are
| less expensive than Case:W, but none better, or, IMNSHO, even as
| good.  The Borland crowd will, of course, disagree.  That is their
| mission, and I respect it, if not their opinions, to which they are
| entitled.

Well, having not used QuickCase:W, I cannot share an opinion on it, to
which I am entitled, and for which you will have no respect anyway.
But, since it is my mission to do so, I'll share an opinion on another
product.

Protogen is getting better all the time and does a pretty good job of
banging out an application in any of the major languages and
application framework packages you might care to use.  And the price
is quite good. Most importantly, you can get a rather nice C++ program
from it. (QuickCase:W may be able to do this as well, but that doesn't
help much when using Quick C.)

| Actually, though, dollar for dollar, you won't get a better deal
| than QC with QC:W, no matter how hard you try.

Dollar for dollar there's probably no better deal than a Lada. But
would you want to drive one every day?

I expect that Turbo C++ for Windows and Protogen are a pretty good
value as well.
--
Kim Letkeman	kim@Software.Mitel.COM
--
Kim Letkeman	kim@Software.Mitel.COM