🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Nov9.130326.657@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, jhl@kira.msu.edu (John Lawitzke) writes:
> Could someone provide me with a comparison between Turbo C++ 1.0 and
> Microsoft C 6.0. I don't want to hear: "Turbo is C++ and Microsoft is
> not". I would like to hear about there relative merits as straight C
> compilers. Also has Codeview changed between C 5.1 and C 6.0?

I can't give a complete comparison of the Borland compilers vs the
Microsoft compilers (I don't use the Borland compilers, for reasons
that will soon become obvious), but I have used the Microsoft C
compiler for quite a while.

The major problem with the Borland compilers from my point of view
is that they don't support Windows.  End of story.  There are rumors
that they may do so "eventually", and it should be possible to kludge
around the problems with copious assembly code, but it's a tremendous
pain and not worth doing it for my purposes.  If this is important to
you, then that may remove Borland from the picture (you might look at
Zortech instead, I've just continued to use the Microsoft C because
of inertia;  I've had it since about C 2.0 or 3.0, I forget which, and
it always seemed easiest to just upgrade the compiler rather than go
with Zortech, but I've heard that the Zortech C++ is pretty good and it 
does do Windows).

Codeview has changed somewhat between C 5.1 and C 6.0, I believe that
it no longer requires such enormous object modules and can live in
extended memory.  But I hardly ever use Codeview anyway, so I'm not
the best person to ask about changes in it.

						Bruce C. Wright