🚀 go-pugleaf

In <10125@portia.Stanford.EDU>,  dma@nova.stanford.edu (Domingo Mihovilovic A)
writes:

>Hi,
>	I am planning to switch from Pascal to C, and I have the doubt
>of Turbo or Microsoft. I would choose Borland because I have been
>working with Turbo Pascal and it is very good.
>
>	Do you know of some real and important differences that could move
>me to select Microsoft C instead of Turbo C ?
>	Thanks for your comments,
>
>Domingo Mihovilovic A.
>dma@scotty.stanford.edu

1)  Turbo-C costs lots less than full MSC, and about the same as Quick-C.

2)  Borland's debugger is better than Codeview, though it costs extra.  For
    a bit less than MSC alone would cost (approx $275 mail-order, I believe),
    you can pick up Turbo-C professional (approx $200, I believe) which gives
    you Turbo-C 2.0, Turbo Debugger 1.5, and Turbo Assembler 1.5.

3)  Turbo-C compiles faster than MSC, though from what I've read, MSC performs
    better optimization.

4)  I prefer Borland's documentation, though Microsoft's is very usable.

5)  MSC consumes significantly more space on a hard drive than Turbo-C does.
    When I switched from QuickC 1.0 (no HUGE model) to Turbo-C, my total drive
    space used by the C compiler was actually reduced!  Full MSC takes even
    more than QuickC.

Basically, in my opinion, you can't go wrong either way, but I definitely
prefer Turbo-C.

If you do go the Turbo-C route, I'd strongly suggest you purchase 
Turbo-C Professional, just for the sake of the debugger alone.  Turbo Debugger
has saved me countless hours on single projects alone.

-Kevin Trojanowski
 troj@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
 trojpg@uiamvs.bitnet
 troj@cadfx.ccad.uiowa.edu