ram@lscvax.UUCP (Ric Messier) (02/08/88)
I've finally talked myself into picking up a C compiler and thought I
had even decided on which one to get. The price was just right and so
was the name when all of a sudden, I hear about this other compiler for
the same price and also from a well-respected name. Here's my dilemna:
I can pick up both Microsoft's Quick C and Borland's Turbo C for $53/ea but
I am not sure which is the better compiler. I have asked everyone I know
but they all give me the runaround without answering the really
important questions. Therefore, I am going to ask the experts, hopefully
those of you that have used either or both. I am currently using Turbo
Pascal and I like it well enough, mainly because I have recently
discovered a comprehensive reference manual that covers everything from
inline assembler code to DOS and BIOS interrupt calls within the code,
to graphics to version 4 and all the toolboxes to ... Well, you get the
picture. But I want to get a C package that is at least as good because,
all though the work I am currently doing is in Pascal, I have never been
partial to the language.
Anyway, to the point. I want to know what kind of package each of them
is, what kind of graphics capabilities, support of the Kernighan/Ritchie
C, other C compilers they are compatible with, how much low level access
there is, etc. I have asked the companies themselves for the infomation,
but I doubt that I will be getting any of it soon, if at all. The other
thing I want to know is what kind of editor comes with the latest
release of Turbo C. I am kind of partial to pulldown menus which are
included in the Quick C package and I don't particularly enjoy going to
the Turbo editor sometimes, though I realize that I can change the
commands to whatever suits me, there are just some things I want to do
that it can't.
Whatever information anyone can provide me with would be greatly
appreciated.
--
- Kilroy
'Just what cowpatch is Lyndonville, Vermont in anyway?'
dartvax!lscvax!ram
*** Can't deal, &CRASHwew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) (02/11/88)
Educators can pick up Turbo C for $39.95 directly from Borland. Most of the articles I have read indicate that Turbo C is superior to Quick C. On our campus here we have also had Quick C blow away hard drives, so be careful. Bill Wilson
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (02/11/88)
In article <567@naucse.UUCP> wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes: | |Educators can pick up Turbo C for $39.95 directly from |Borland. I just got my coupons and found that the new price is $44.95. Still better than mail order at ~ $65. Incidentally, essentially ALL of BORLAND's products are available at a discount to educators and educatees. (I said "essentially" because I'm C-ing my A! :-)) -- Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334 Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
mr@homxb.UUCP (mark) (02/13/88)
In article <567@naucse.UUCP>, wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes: > > Educators can pick up Turbo C for $39.95 directly from > Borland. Most of the articles I have read indicate that > Turbo C is superior to Quick C. On our campus here we have also > had Quick C blow away hard drives, so be careful. > > Bill Wilson GODDAM !!! I also had quick C blow away my drive. It wrote all over the FAT table. The program was as simple as you can get : fp = fopen(.. some file ..) fclose(fp); Fortunately, I had another copy of the FAT table and was able to recover after only 4 hours of panic. mark homxb!mr
Kumar_Swaminathan.SVSantaClara@Xerox.COM (02/13/88)
All things considered as for as capabilities (lack of them), I recommend quick c., based on following 3 points: 1. "Quick"/"Turbo" means one thing: No serious optimization. At least with quick C, It is compatible with ms's "real" C compiler. So i can use qc to develop,and build the program with reg. c compiler for production. 2. Turbo C has no debugger, while qc does. 3.qc is from Microsoft, and for whatever it's worth it is a big name company, as for as future considerations (With other compilers from MS). Finally, ofcourse it depends on the application that u want to develop with either of compilers.. If u can buy each of 'em for about 60 bucks, why not buy both of them, and evaluate yourself ?.
robinson@dalcsug.UUCP (John Robinson) (02/15/88)
In article <11792@brl-adm.ARPA>, Kumar_Swaminathan.SVSantaClara@Xerox.COM writes: > All things considered as for as capabilities (lack of them), I recommend quick > c., based on following 3 points: > > 1. "Quick"/"Turbo" means one thing: No serious optimization. At least with > quick C, It is compatible with ms's "real" C compiler. So i can use qc to > develop,and build the program with reg. c compiler for production. > Be that as it may, the postings I have seen indicate very little difference in execution time between TurboC and MSC 5.0. > 2. Turbo C has no debugger, while qc does. This is true. My experience with Microsoft languages included Microsoft Fortran v 4.0. This includes CodeVeiw which is a very nice debugger. However, I prefer to use debuggers to find errors in MY programs, not THEIR compiler! Also, Borland has announced a debugger to TurboC in the 'first quarter of 88'. Till then the one posted on compuserve will do fine. So, for that matter, will Codeview which comes with MASM 5.0. > > 3.qc is from Microsoft, and for whatever it's worth it is a big name company, > as for as future considerations (With other compilers from MS). I guess you failed to notice that Borland has shipped over 500,000 copies of Turbo Pascal. Also, they shipped over 30,000 copies of TurboC in the first WEEK. They now claim over 100,000 copies. I'm sure that Borland is heartbroken, given this, that you don't consider them a 'big name company' :-). > > Finally, ofcourse it depends on the application that u want to develop with > either of compilers.. If u can buy each of 'em for about 60 bucks, why not buy > both of them, and evaluate yourself ?. This is very good advice even if the English is a little weak!
Kumar_Swaminathan.SVSantaClara@Xerox.COM (02/17/88)
In article<341@dalcsug.UUCP> Mr.John Robinson had responded to my comparison of Quick C and Turbo C. This is what i think of his response : In article <11792@brl-adm.ARPA>, Kumar_Swaminathan.SVSantaClara@Xerox.COM writes: > All things considered as for as capabilities (lack of them), I recommend quick > c., based on following 3 points: > > 1. "Quick"/"Turbo" means one thing: No serious optimization. At least with > quick C, It is compatible with ms's "real" C compiler. So i can use qc to > develop,and build the program with reg. c compiler for production. > Be that as it may, the postings I have seen indicate very little difference in execution time between TurboC and MSC 5.0. >>Quote from PC Mag. (Vol 6 #16 Sep '87) : "Microsoft C compiler ties or beats Turbo C on most numeric, screen write and file operations." Mr.Robinson sys that the posting that he had seen indicates very little difference in execution time. My point here is that with MSC you get more optimization. I'm sure whatever (john's)source that did that comparison must have used a ridiculously simple benchmark like sieve. One can only compare the degree of optimization by running the test on programs that can be optimized. > 2. Turbo C has no debugger, while qc does. This is true. My experience with Microsoft languages included Microsoft Fortran v 4.0. This includes CodeVeiw which is a very nice debugger. However, I prefer to use debuggers to find errors in MY programs, not THEIR compiler! Also, Borland has announced a debugger to TurboC in the 'first quarter of 88'. Till then the one posted on compuserve will do fine. So, for that matter, will Codeview which comes with MASM 5.0. >>This is exactly the point i was trying to make in the next item (#3 ). With MicroSoft (The "big" name company), i get the OS, compiler, linker AND the debugger from one company. So when john or I have a problem with any of them we call one company for help. With TC you get the compiler from one company and the debugger from who knows where?. So, who the hell do you call when you have problems debugging in TC?. > 3.qc is from Microsoft, and for whatever it's worth it is a big name company, > as for as future considerations (With other compilers from MS). I guess you failed to notice that Borland has shipped over 500,000 copies of Turbo Pascal. Also, they shipped over 30,000 copies of TurboC in the first WEEK. They now claim over 100,000 copies. I'm sure that Borland is heartbroken, given this, that you don't consider them a 'big name company' :-). >>If only john will pay more attention to what he reads. Does anyone see anything that i have written that says Borland is NOT a "big name company"?. I was comparing compilers from two different companies, and i made a statement to the effect that Microsoft is a "bigger name company". See the point that i made above. Moreover don't throw those numbers at me. Don't u (short for 'you', in case someone didn't have enough brain to understand this in my last mail) know that almost every PC in the world that runs DOS gets that OS from MS? > Finally, ofcourse it depends on the application that u want to develop with > either of compilers.. If u can buy each of 'em for about 60 bucks, why not buy > both of them, and evaluate yourself ?. This is very good advice even if the English is a little weak! >> While I thank Mr. Robinson knowing that I can now go to him whenever I have any problems with my English, I cannot but feel that if john had pursued his career in English instead of programming, he would have made it, ... probably.
igp@camcon.uucp (Ian Phillipps) (02/19/88)
From article <389@lscvax.UUCP>, by ram@lscvax.UUCP (Ric Messier): > I've finally talked myself into picking up a C compiler and thought I > had even decided on which one to get. The price was just right and so [...] > > I can pick up both Microsoft's Quick C and Borland's Turbo C for $53/ea but > I am not sure which is the better compiler. I have asked everyone I know > but ... I've used Turbo 1.0 and MSC 4.0. The latter got squeezed off my disk a while back. The Turbo editor is limited as an editor, but does have remap - you could tart it up if need be with a keyboard remap program. > inline assembler code to DOS and BIOS interrupt calls within the code, Yes - the compiler will generate IN OUT INT and you have direct register access, if you like that sort of thing. > > Anyway, to the point. I want to know what kind of package each of them > is, what kind of graphics capabilities, support of the Kernighan/Ritchie Both go WAY beyond K & R. I think Borland is a bit ahead of MS on some things; as I haven't read the draft ANSI standard, I dont know if declarations like main( int argc, char **argv ) { /* hello world */ } are in it - Borland takes them, MSC doesn't. MSC 5.0 "totally compatible with Quick C" barfs on #pragma - guess how I found that out! There are irritating differences with the header files (memory.h vs mem.h) but not much serious unless you use the Turbo extensions in non-macro form. (If you use inp or outp, Turbo will do them in-line via macros). > release of Turbo C. I am kind of partial to pulldown menus which are > included in the Quick C package and I don't particularly enjoy going to > the Turbo editor sometimes, though I realize that I can change the > commands to whatever suits me, there are just some things I want to do > that it can't. If you like pull down menus, youll LOVE Turbo C. There are lots of graphics in Turbo V 1.5 - I haven't got that yet. ... all views purely personal ... -- UUCP: ...!ukc!camcon!igp | Cambridge Consultants Ltd | Ian Phillipps or: igp@camcon.uucp | Science Park, Milton Road |----------------- Phone: +44 223 358855 | Cambridge CB4 4DW, England |