🚀 go-pugleaf

>> Do you know of some real and important differences that could move
>> me to select Microsoft C instead of Turbo C ?

Kevin Trojanowski <troj@icon.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
>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.

In version 6.0 of Microsoft C (as of last week, unannounced, but previewed
in the March BYTE), Codeview has an improved data inspector, and can now
run in extended memory on 286/386/486 machines.  It also has more help.

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

...and MSC 6.0 does better optimization yet.

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

Doesn't Borland still use the paperback-style manuals?  If so, I'd galdly
pay $50 extra to get real binders as with MSC.  MSC has comprehensive
documentation, but I haven't used Turbo C, so I can't compare.

>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.

6)   Microsoft C generates code for OS/2 and Windows as well as DOS, 
     including DLL's.

7)   MSC 6.0 includes a real Make, not the abomination in MSC 5.0, plus
     a makefile generator which looks for dependencies.

8)   MSC 6.0 has the Browser; this is something like a fancy interactive
     cross-referencer, which uses the information built by the compiler.

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

Ditto, except I prefer MSC.  :)  Take a look at March BYTE, page 115.

[ \tom haapanen -- university of waterloo -- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu    ]
[ "i say what i say, but i say it for myself and myself only" -- me        ]
[ "i don't even know what street canada is on"                -- al capone ]

In article <924@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> troj@icon.weeg.uiowa.edu () writes:
>In <10125@portia.Stanford.EDU>,  dma@nova.stanford.edu (Domingo Mihovilovic A)
>writes:
>
>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.
>
Just a note but recently, Borland and Watcom signed an agreement where
Turbo Debugger (v2.0) will be compatible with Watcom's C compiler.  There
will be a translation program which converts Watcom OBJ files to TDEBUGGER
compatible format.

Maybe this is a third option.  I have no personal experience with the Watcom
product but it's code generation is supposedly at or near the top in the
industry.

By the way, this is not a plug for the Watcom C compiler...just a tidbit of 
info FYI.

Could someone tell me what the latest version of Turbo Assembler/
Turbo Debugger is?  Is version 2 available for both or either of
these now?  I have Turbo C and I'd like to get the most recent
versions of Assembler/Debugger.  

Thanks.

Richard T. Ferris
ferris@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
University of Pennsylvania

In article <1468@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iri (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>>> Do you know of some real and important differences that could move
>>> me to select Microsoft C instead of Turbo C ?
>
>Kevin Trojanowski <troj@icon.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
>In version 6.0 of Microsoft C (as of last week, unannounced, but previewed
>in the March BYTE), [stuff deleted] 
>
>>4)  I prefer Borland's documentation, though Microsoft's is very usable.
  Get Serious!
>
>Doesn't Borland still use the paperback-style manuals?  If so, I'd galdly
>pay $50 extra to get real binders as with MSC.  MSC has comprehensive
>documentation, but I haven't used Turbo C, so I can't compare.

	Unfortunately, you can expect MS to have paperback manuals too.
Witness the OS/2 Programmer's Ref.  In addition, they abandoned the 
one-function-per-page "rule" with OS/2 1.1 Prog Ref kit.

	From talking to MS people here and on CI$, paperback is the way 
of the future. (Boo! Hiss!)  I'm told it was a "marketing decision".
(stupid marketing decision, IMHO).


cris