Article View: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Article #1606Re: Which C compiler ?
From: rja
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 1990 18:56
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 1990 18:56
16 lines
1208 bytes
1208 bytes
With trivial differences in source code style, each of the compilers tested by Computer Langauge could be shown to be "more optimising". The real conclusion was that there aren't significant differences in the optimisers between modern MSDOS compilers whether Watcom, Borland, Microsoft, ... For my own part, I've heard enough bad reports about Microsoft C 6.0 that I won't use it. I've found Borlands TC 2.0 and TC++ 1.0 to work fine in production use and the original reason I went to TC 2.0 was disgust with MS C 5.1. A lot of people seem happy with Watcom and Zortech as well. I'll take another look if/when MS C 6.1 or MS C++ appear (neither is an announced product, but you get my drift :-).
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9007191856.AA00749@edison.CHO.GE.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!edison.cho.ge.com!rjaReferences:
<1446@doitcr.doit.sub.org>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!edison.cho.ge.com!rja From: rja@edison.cho.ge.com (rja) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer Subject: Re: Which C compiler ? Message-ID: <9007191856.AA00749@edison.CHO.GE.COM> Date: 19 Jul 90 18:56:41 GMT References: <1446@doitcr.doit.sub.org> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: rja <rja@edison.cho.ge.com> Organization: GE-Fanuc North America Lines: 16