tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (04/07/90)
In article <2265.261dce80@cc.helsinki.fi> liehu@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >What is the main differences between Turbo C and Microsoft C ? One produces more Finnished code.
liehu@cc.helsinki.fi (04/07/90)
What is the main differences between Turbo C and Microsoft C ?
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (04/10/90)
In article <2265.261dce80@cc.helsinki.fi> liehu@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > >What is the main differences between Turbo C and Microsoft C ? ~$400.00 -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | Government: D'Arcy Cain Consulting | Organized crime with an attitude West Hill, Ontario, Canada | (416) 281-6094 |
platt@ndla.UUCP (Daniel E. Platt) (04/11/90)
In article <1990Apr9.170818.9474@druid.uucp>, darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes: > In article <2265.261dce80@cc.helsinki.fi> liehu@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > > > >What is the main differences between Turbo C and Microsoft C ? > ~$400.00 > How do you get $400.00? I've consistantly seen MSC going for less than $400.00 and Turbo C over $0.00. How do you get MSC - TC > 400 when MSC < 400 and TC > 0? Dan
kla@physc1.byu.edu (04/11/90)
Turbo C is much preferred if you have to get down into the bowels of the DOS world (ie. tsr's operating systems etc) because of the short cuts which you can't make in MSC. For example _AX = 0x45 translates in turbo to "stick a hex 45 into the AX register. In microsoft you have to edit a separate .asm file and link it in. I feel sorry for anyone who has to do this type of stuff, but if you do Turbo has some real advantages. I wrote a TSR in Turbo in about 2 hours. It took me (an .asm novice) almost 2 weeks to get the same thing going with MSC and MASM. I would be the first to admit that MSC probably puts out better code, but I believe that Programmer efficiency is often much more important than program efficiency. With the MSC link taking upwards of 4 minutes on some of our stuff (= 30 seconds with tlink) there are some obvious advantages. One reason we have had to use MSC is to link in MSC libraries which have been sold to us without source. Using Turbo under these circumstances is tenuous at best, but we worked out a way of putting the library into a MSC TSR and then accessing it with Turbo C. Works like a charm and 80% of the students in the lab use this version rather than wait for the $^#^#$*& linker of MSC. On the other hand MSC 6.0 is supposedly an incremental compiler. Is this true or just a rumor? Will this work under DOS or just OS/2. Has it got anything to break the 640K headaches? If any of these things are true it would probably beat the pants off of Turbo's current version. But Turbo is bound to come up with another version real soon too. Hope this helps or at least fans the flames.
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (04/14/90)
< < What is the main differences between Turbo C and Microsoft C ? < If you tell Turbo C to produce assembly output, and then run that assembly output through the assembler, you will get a correct object file. If you tell Microsoft C to produce assembly output, and then run that assembly output through the assembler, you will get a correct object file in some cases. In other cases, you get no object file because the assembly output of Microsoft C is not always legal assembly code! Turbo C makes you almost able to stand not being on a Mac II with Think C. Microsoft C allows you to easily schedule into your work day games of Go with your coworkers while waiting for compiles. Tim Smith ps: why would anyone want the assembly output, you ask? For obscure reasons, I had a program that was contained in two C source files, but that had to produce a single object file. Under Unix, this would be trivial. Under DOS, using the standard tools, there is apparently no bloody way to do this! So I was *merging* the two assembly files into one C file to run through the assembler. Yuck! We ended up buying plink86, which can merge object files. This introduced new problems, however, because plink86 insists on renaming some of the segments in the object file, so we had to write a program that patched the damn object file to fix up after plink86. I hate DOS.
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (04/14/90)
In article <293@ndla.UUCP> platt@ndla.UUCP (Daniel E. Platt) writes: >In article <1990Apr9.170818.9474@druid.uucp>, darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes: >> In article <2265.261dce80@cc.helsinki.fi> liehu@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >> >What is the main differences between Turbo C and Microsoft C ? >> ~$400.00 > >How do you get $400.00? I've consistantly seen MSC going for less than >$400.00 and Turbo C over $0.00. How do you get And mail points this out as well. Note that the whole world doesn't calculate everything in US$. Since I bought mine in Canadian dollars and since I am posting from Canada I used Canadian prices. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | Government: D'Arcy Cain Consulting | Organized crime with an attitude West Hill, Ontario, Canada | (416) 281-6094 |
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (04/15/90)
Oops. I made a mistake in my last posting. The reason I had to merge two object files was not because I had two C files. The reason I had to merge object files was because I had an assembly file in addition to the two C files. The C files were in fact handled by #including one in the other. Tim Smith