🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <4552@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>, by rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel):
> In article <4641@feldspar30.UUCP> nellis@motcid.UUCP (Michael R. Nellis) writes:
>>I am looking to purchase a 'C' compiler.
>>anyone have any words of wisdom for me?  Does
> 
> I know both Compilers (but not TC++) and I am using C 6.00 now. MS C is
> more powerfull. It's not some spot features, it's the overall
> functionality. Also, it allows development for MS Windows (with SDK) and
> OS/2 and OS/2 PM (without additional SDK!). Optimization is better.
> This costs it's price: much more used disk space and it is slow.
> 
> I have tried a TC 1.0 long time ago and had problems compiling sources
> from Unix systems, MS C 5.1 was more reliable at this time. But this may
> have changed for TC 2.0 now, but I doubt.
>
I use TC++ and am very fond of it.  I have tried MS and think the
Borland products are superior.  I didn't have much of a problem
porting Unix code to TC 2.0 and now that I have C++ it is even
easier.  The new version has a wonderful environment and has an
ANSI switch that can be used to make ANSI only programs.  

If you are going to be doing Windows or OS/2 development, you 
will need to get MSC.  I haven't heard when Borland will be
offering a compiler for this.  If your programs are for DOS only,
I would highly recommend Turbo C++.

 
Let sleeping dragons lie........               | The RoleMancer 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wilson             (Bitnet: ucc2wew@nauvm | wilson@nauvax)
Northern AZ Univ  Flagstaff, AZ 86011
-- 
Let sleeping dragons lie........               | The RoleMancer 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wilson             (Bitnet: ucc2wew@nauvm | wilson@nauvax)
Northern AZ Univ  Flagstaff, AZ 86011