🚀 go-pugleaf

Ask and you shall receive.  In the upcomming October issue of
Dr. Dobbs journal there is a comparison of several class
libraries (application frameworks) that you will probably
find interesting.


In article <1992Aug31.105615.1640@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>> eau@runx.oz.au writes:
>>> We're trying to decide between Microsoft and Borland compilers
>>> as a standard compiler for building our products. We will use 
>>> both compilers during development - the question is which one 
>>> to use to generate the final .EXE. [etc]
>
>lance@lancea.actrix.gen.nz (Lance Andrewes) writes:
>> There's a comprehensive review of C/C++ compilers in PC Magazine,
>> July 92, volume 11 number 13.
>
>There's also one in Infoworld, August 17.
>
>HOWEVER, I will say again (and I bitched about this before) that neither
>article was, in my opinion, a *good* comparison for the purposes of pro-
>fessional developers.  Concentrating on IDEs and resource tools stinks if
>you gloss over code optimization (extent and flexibility), class libraries
>and documentation.
>
>I wish someone like Dr. Dobbs Journal or DOS/Windows Programmer's Journal
>would do a good, *technical* review of the C/C++ compilers.  Alas, it doesn't
>really seem like that's in the cards...
>
>[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
>[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
>[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]


-- 
Steven Sinofsky
stevesi@microsoft.com
Disclaimer: I don't speak for Microsoft, BillG does that.