🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <25923@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>,
	 jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes:
>>I'm pretty sure that the unanimous response will be to use either Turbo C
>>2.0 or Turbo C++ 1.01, since both are fast and VERY easy to use.  

In article <28832@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
%Microsoft C is said to have the best optimisation on the block.

In fact, empirical testing has shown that essentially all of the C
compilers from major vendors (MS, Borland, Zortech, Watcom, etc.) have
about the same level of optimisation.  A recent article (this summer)
in _Computer_Language_ gives actual code examples and demonstrates
that with trivial changes to the source code any of the tested
compilers can come out on top.

The net result is that "optimisation" isn't much of a reason to buy a
compiler.  The biggest areas of differentiation are really the libraries
that come with the compiler (this is where MS really doesn't perform
well compared with Borland or Watcom) and the quality of the development
environment (both Borland and MS are considered better than Watcom here).

There have been widespread gripes posted here about problems with MS
C 6.0 and a lot of folks I know who are locked into the MS compilers 
have decided to wait for the next minor release of the compiler before
upgrading.  In the past, some of us have seen DOS versions 2.0 and
3.0 and 4.0 and MS C 4.0 and 5.0 and decided that when dealing with
MS it is sometimes best to wait for the X.1 version so that most of
the new bugs are fixed.

Borland isn't immune to this sort of problem.  TC 2.00 had a number of
bugs that were fixed with TC 2.01 (though the patches were widely
available on the net -- Simtel20 had them).  TC++ 1.00 also has had
some problems which is why they are now shipping TC++ 1.01 which
fixes most of these problems.

I personally have used Borland compilers and debuggers for a while now
and have been very happy with them both for performance and for cost.
Other people have different needs and have been happy with other
compilers and tools.  I'm not sure it really makes all that much
difference for Pascal and C compilers.  Borland and Zortech share
the C++ market for the moment.

>> For pascal, Turbo Pascal 6.0 looks like the hot ticket -- an
>> interface builder is part of the application program now.  Plus you
>> get access to utils such as Turbo Drive (extended memory compiler --
>> runs out of extended memroy), Turbo Assembler (more masm compatible
>> than masm), Turbo Profiler (profiles function speeds and
>> bottlencks), Turbo Editor (AWESOME editing environment), and Turbo
>> Debugger (best debugger on the market, competed only by MultiScope).

However not everyone LIKES integrated environments.  I for one usually
use MicroEMACS with a script that lets me invoke TCC or dmake from
inside the editor and use the MKS Korn Shell and MKS Toolkit outside
EMACS in order to make MSDOS as UNIX-like as possible.  I find I'm
much more productive this way than I would be using the integrated
environment.  Your preferences will probably be different -- which
is the point I'm trying to make.

Also, even folks who don't use Borland compilers can purchase the
TURBO DEBUGGER & TOOLS and since Turbo Debugger supports CodeView
executables there is no problem getting and using these other items 
if they are what one needs.  

>> The only thing that I can think of as not good about Borland
>> products is that they are not Windows 3.0 compatible.

Well Borland have privately demoed TC++ for Windows and indicated
that they plan to have a TP for Windows product as well so that
while this is true now it also will be changing.  

The main problem with Borland as compared with say MS or Watcom or
Metaware is that they don't really support ROM-able code or
protected-mode 386 code.  For ROM work, I'd use MS C every time
because there are fewer hoops to jump.