Article View: comp.os.os2.programmer
Article #2742Re: CSet/2 vs. Watcom C?
From: John Hesse
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 04:19
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 04:19
20 lines
1434 bytes
1434 bytes
I haven't used the Watcom compiler, but I've used the C Set/2 compiler a lot (as a contractor for IBM) and I like it. In my limited experience it seems to be solid and has a damn good optimizer. I've compared it with Borland 3.1 in terms of speed: with the half-dozen CPU- bound programs that I've benchmarked, IBM C Set/2 beats BC 3.1 sometimes by a 4:1 margin. (I'm not sure 3.1 generates good 386 code ??). My opinion is that the IBM Toronto group that developed the compiler did a first class job. Sadly, and once again, IBM does not know how to market PC software. The C Set/2 compiler deserves widespread attention and use. It's the real thing. -- ----------------------------+---------------+------------------------- J Hesse | END | California jhesse@netcom.com | 50 MPH | traffic Moss Beach, Calif | SPEED LIMIT | sign ----------------------------+---------------+-------------------------
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan1.041939.25929@netcom.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!jhesseReferences:
<1992Dec30.222721.29697@samba.oit.unc.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!jhesse From: jhesse@netcom.com (John Hesse) Subject: Re: CSet/2 vs. Watcom C? Message-ID: <1993Jan1.041939.25929@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) References: <1992Dec30.222721.29697@samba.oit.unc.edu> Distribution: na Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 04:19:39 GMT Lines: 20