saroff@jvncf.UUCP (Steve Saroff lac00001) (09/18/89)
I would be interested in getting folks opinions on which is a better
buy Microsoft C or Turbo C. I am interested in both as languages,
and in terms of development envrionment (mouse-less). Also which is
better at linking modules from different languages.
I will summarize.
--
SzS
Dr. S.Z. Saroff
John von Neumann National Supercomputer Center internet: saroff@jvncf.csc.org
665 College Road East, P.O. Box 3717 saroff@jvncc.csc.org
Princeton, NJ 08543 (609) 520-2000 bitnet: saroff@jvncc
o o
(_)____o
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(_____)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
oo oo The Bear who SwimsBob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) (09/22/89)
In an article of <18 Sep 89 14:38:52 GMT>, (Steve Saroff lac00001) writes: >I would be interested in getting folks opinions on which is a better >buy Microsoft C or Turbo C. I am interested in both as languages, >and in terms of development envrionment (mouse-less). Also which is >better at linking modules from different languages. "A better buy"? Turbo C by a wide margin. A better compiler? Microsoft by a much slimmer margin. Better for mixed-language programming? No contest, MSC is the only real choice for mixed-language programmers. You also didn't mention Microsoft Quick-C which is more of an apples-to-apples comparison. TC was better than QC 1.x (which is what is still bundled with MSC 5.1) QC 2.0 is better than TC 2.0 - and so the see-saw goes... Personally, I prefer Zortech C to anything Microsoft or Borland makes, but otherwise I like QC, TC, and MSC in that order. Of course the nature of the project will shuffle the order of the list...
wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) (10/04/89)
From article <23303.25258F1F@urchin.fidonet.org>, by Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout): > "A better buy"? Turbo C by a wide margin. A better compiler? Microsoft by a > much slimmer margin. Better for mixed-language programming? No contest, MSC is > the only real choice for mixed-language programmers. You also didn't mention > I must dissagree with you on this point. With TC 2.0 I have been able to link to MS Fortran and assember. It is also possible to link to pascal, prolog, and any other package that creates an MS object module compatible file. Also, after porting quite a few programs from Unix to DOS in C using Turbo C, I find it very compatible and easier to perform. One good example is GNUPLOT. Under MSC a number of Assembly language routines had to be written to handle the graphics output. Separate routines were needed for each type of graphics interface. With TC all I had to do is use their primitives, create generic routines and pass them the parameters needed to handle the graphics output. Programmers around NAU seem to prefer the Borland products overall. -- Let sleeping dragons lie........ | The Bit Chaser ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Wilson (Bitnet: ucc2wew@nauvm | wilson@nauvax) Northern AZ Univ Flagstaff, AZ 86011
DMULLER@ENI.Prime.COM (10/05/89)
My colleagues and I find TurboC to be easier to work with, whether or not you use the integrated environment. The debugger is superb, and is designed to work without a mouse (as a matter of fact, it has NO provision for use with a mouse). The docs are pretty good. The quality of error checking and reporting seems quite good - turn on all the syntax checking, and you won't need anything like lint. Hope this helps. Dan Muller Senior Software Engineer Prime Computer Inc.
daved@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (david.dougherty) (10/05/89)
In article <1727@naucse.UUCP> wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes: >From article <23303.25258F1F@urchin.fidonet.org>, by Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout): >> "A better buy"? Turbo C by a wide margin. A better compiler? Microsoft by a >> much slimmer margin. Better for mixed-language programming? No contest, MSC is >> the only real choice for mixed-language programmers. You also didn't mention I'd love to use Borland's Turbo C, but I can't. It's just not a robust compiler. You see, recently, I purchased TurboTeX from the Kinch Computer Company; I also bought the source. Now, TeX and METAFONT are very large programs. Turbo C choked. MSC 5.1 compiled it without so much as a hiccup. I've found this to be true in general. I LOVE Turbo Pascal, but I just don't think that Borland did things right with their C product. -- David W. Dougherty @ AT&T Bell Laboratories ARPA: dwd@attunix.att.COM UUCP: ...!att!attunix!dwd TELE: 201/522-6241 MAIL: Rm. E-125; 190 River Road; Summit, NJ 07901
scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) (10/06/89)
In article <1727@naucse.UUCP> wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes: >From article <23303.25258F1F@urchin.fidonet.org>, by Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout): >> "A better buy"? Turbo C by a wide margin. A better compiler? Microsoft by a >> much slimmer margin. Better for mixed-language programming? No contest, MSC is >> the only real choice for mixed-language programmers. You also didn't mention >> >I must dissagree with you on this point. With TC 2.0 I have been able >to link to MS Fortran and assember. It is also possible to link to >pascal, prolog, and any other package that creates an MS object >module compatible file.... I use Turbo C myself and I am quite happy with it. However, the Turbo C linker (TLINK) does not support all of Microsoft's undocumented record types (The TC manual even acknowledges this). To use TC's words, the linker is "lean and mean" (and it is :-). Therefore, it is possible that TLINK will not be able to work with some OBJs that were produced by other languages. However, Microsofts linker should be able to handle any OBJ created by TC. -- Scott Amspoker Basis International, Albuquerque, NM (505) 345-5232
lwh@harpsichord.cis.ohio-state.edu (Loyde W Hales) (10/06/89)
>I'd love to use Borland's Turbo C, but I can't. It's just not a robust >compiler. You see, recently, I purchased TurboTeX from the Kinch Computer >Company; I also bought the source. Now, TeX and METAFONT are very large >programs. Turbo C choked. MSC 5.1 compiled it without so much as a >hiccup. I've found this to be true in general. I LOVE Turbo Pascal, >but I just don't think that Borland did things right with their C product. No insult (really), but you really should try again. I love Turbo C. I've played with other C compilers, both on the PC and on the Suns, and Borland's product is BY FAR my favorite. It produces clean executable, catches essentially all my errors when properly set, and in a dream to use. I can't imagine what your problem is, unless you're depending on the interactive editor when you've used most of your memory. (If I'm wrong, sorry; this is what is looks like.) If that's all it is, there are several alternatives. TC took an approach of providing interactive edit/debug tools that, of course, take a lot of space. If you don't want them, use the command-line compiler. If you do, grab yourself EMS. TC uses it well, and it's worth the money. Also, if your problem is that the source code gets too large, you can take the same approach. First, use the command-line (saves memory). Also, you can break into different files (partial compilation is better anyway). Finally, EMS will allow you to ``spool'' in read. TC does have a problem with very large files, partially because it tries to keep so much information around to speed compilation and aid in debug. I'd rather do the bright thnig (smaller files) than lose this. -=- Department of Computer and Information Science Loyde W. Hales, II The Ohio State University lwh@cis.ohio-state.edu 2036 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, Ohio 43201
scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) (10/06/89)
In article <2136@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> daved@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (david.dougherty,sf,) writes: >I'd love to use Borland's Turbo C, but I can't. It's just not a robust >compiler. You see, recently, I purchased TurboTeX from the Kinch Computer >Company; I also bought the source. Now, TeX and METAFONT are very large >programs. Turbo C choked. MSC 5.1 compiled it without so much as a >hiccup. Tell us more about this. Were you using the command line compiler or the integrated compiler? I've run some pretty hefty source files through Turbo C without any problem. Am I approaching some limit? -- Scott Amspoker Basis International, Albuquerque, NM (505) 345-5232
matsl@nada.kth.se (Mats Luthman) (10/07/89)
In article <2136@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> daved@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (david.dougherty,sf,) writes: >Company; I also bought the source. Now, TeX and METAFONT are very large >programs. Turbo C choked. MSC 5.1 compiled it without so much as a Exactly what do you mean when you say 'choked'? My experience is that Turbo C works. I have only dealt with MSC 4.0, and that was a complete joke. 'Expression too complicated' and 'Macro expansion too long' all the time where Turbo C compiled everyting fine (and many times faster too).
caprio@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Mike Caprio) (10/25/89)
I had the opposite experience with TURBO C and MSC 5.0. A program that compiled w/o problems on TC 2.0 caused parser problems with MSC 5.0. I eventually had to simplify the code to feed it through MSC (I was using a min # of functions to pacify an urgent need for speed). MC