🚀 go-pugleaf

PC Week ran an article ( Oct. 14 1991 , page 133 ) on this topic.
The compilers reviewed were:

        Intel's          386/486 CodeBuilder 1.0;
        MetaWare's       High C 2.31
        Symantec's       Zortech C++ 3.0
        Watcom's         C/386 8.5

The things scored were:

        Accuracy of generated code
        Execution speed of generated code
        Completeness and org. of documentation
        Quality of add. tools
        Price vs Performance

Zortech was first, Watcom second, Intel third, and MetaWare fourth.
                                  /* tie here if you count dots/half dots */
                                  /* empty dots.                          */

For Windows 3.0 development, Zortech and Watcom would work.  Stuff
written/compiled with Intel's compiler would run as DOS apps under
Windows.  

I have a copy of Intel's compiler ( of course ) and have used it 
for a couple of projects, only because they wouldn't work under
Borland's C compiler.  Between the two, I would use Turbo C++ any
day.  It compiles MUCH faster than Intel's ( no benchmarks, but for this
one project, I would guess 5-10x for TC++).  Also, CodeBuilder doesn't
include any library documentation.  They want you to buy a MicroSoft C 6.0
reference set ( it at least lists that as one of the needed items (along
with a 386/486 computer) on the outside of the box).  -> nested comments <-

Check the article for the most accurate info, please!!!
--
 Chris Richmond         |     Internet: crichmon@sedona.intel.com
 Intel, Corp. C3-21     |     Phone: (602)-554-8827
 5000 W. Chandler Blvd. |     This crazy is a world place. 
 Chandler, AZ  85226    |     My think losing I'm mind.