ellard@bbn.com (Dan Ellard) (02/06/90)
I've recently inherited an IBM XT, and now I'm looking for a good C programming environment for it. The two popular choices seem to be Microsoft C or Turbo C (i.e. when I go to the local software stores, that's what they have). According to the blurbs on the side of their boxes, they sound nearly identical (except in the area of price, where Turbo C is much more attractive), but of course there are a lot of things that I can't tell from reading the glossies: How do the editors compare? I have a copy of Turbo Pascal 3.0 (vintage 1985) and I don't like that editor very much. I'd like something much more sophisticated, or the ability to use whatever editor I choose and have it interface smoothly with the rest of the environment. How do the 'integrated environments' compare? I think that the Turbo Pacal 3.0 environment is pretty good-- how do these stack up? Given that I have a minimal machine by current standards (IBM XT with 512K, 20 meg hard disk, Hercules graphics) which of these packages will gracefully handle reasonably sized programs (~20K source lines) and compile and link within a tolerable period of time? Are the base packages (Turbo C, QuickC) good enough to do development with, or do I really need the 'professional' packages? Thanks, Dan Ellard --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Ellard -- ellard@bbn.com This line intentionally not left blank.
cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) (02/07/90)
In article <51736@bbn.COM> ellard@BBN.COM (Dan Ellard) writes:
$ How do the editors compare? I have a copy of Turbo Pascal
$ 3.0 (vintage 1985) and I don't like that editor very much.
$ I'd like something much more sophisticated, or the ability
$ to use whatever editor I choose and have it interface
$ smoothly with the rest of the environment.
They haven't used that environment for a few years. If you've seen the
editor for Turbo Pascal 4.0 or higher (which I assume you haven't), it's
much closer to that one. See if any of your friends have a more recent
version of Turbo Pascal so that you can get a better feel for the editor.
As for smoothly interfacing whatever other editor you want ... I use
my usual word processor and have a batch file that invokes the editor,
then the compiler, then (if there were no errors) the linker (if I
want it to). It's not quite as pretty as having the whole thing inte-
grated, but I don't find it to be inconvenient.
--
Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
<std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n";
****************************************************************************
"I want to look at life - In the available light" - Neil Peartjmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (02/07/90)
Quick C has two big drawbacks. First, its debugger is deficient in a few ways. It's probably comprable to the Turbo C integrated debugger, but nowhere near as good as the full Turbo debugger. Second, and perhaps more importantly, is that Microsoft seems to treat this as a learning tool but not as a compiler for real development. For example, you don't get a reference manual: you get a book called _C for Yourself_. Fine if you're learning C and don't already have a text book. Also, the compiler is missing a few basic options. In particular, you can't produce an assember listing. On the plus side, it supports all the libraries supported by the full MS C 5.1, has a good integrated environment (better than Turbo's, unless you are a WordStar fan), and the best online documentation I've ever seen. Quick C programs which can be debugged by CodeView (which comes with MASM, for example), so the price of Quick C plus MASM/CodeView is probably about the same as the price of Turbo C Professional. In sum, I'd lean toward Turbo, but Quick C is still a good choice. PS: The best place I've seen to buy either is MicroWarehouse. They have great prices and great service.
rreiner@yunexus.UUCP (Richard Reiner) (02/07/90)
In article <51736@bbn.COM> ellard@BBN.COM (Dan Ellard) writes: > How do the editors compare? I have a copy of Turbo Pascal > 3.0 (vintage 1985) and I don't like that editor very much. > I'd like something much more sophisticated, or the ability > to use whatever editor I choose and have it interface > smoothly with the rest of the environment. Use a *real* editor like Brief, Epsilon, or Jove, and the command-line compiler (either MS C's cl or Turbo's tcc). Any of these editors can run the compiler inside the editor, and then parse the error messages, positioning your cursor at each. *Much* nicer than the lousy editors in QuickC and Turbo's environment. -- Richard J. Reiner rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca BITNET: rreiner@yorkvm1.bitnet (also rreiner@vm1.yorku.ca)
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (02/07/90)
Perhaps I am a little less gimmick-prone than a lot of programmers. I just use my favorite editor (Logitech Point), and make. Make invokes the MS C compiler as needed. I use code view for debugging. In order to keep from retyping commands when I go between them, I use ndosedit, which allows me to recall the command line. (4DOS, Anarkey, ced, and others will do the same). I find that I prefer this arrangement over Quick C. The only disadvantage is that it doesn't point to syntax errors in the editor after I compile. But Point will let me have the listing open in one window and the source in the another, which gives me more information anyway. As far as I am concerned, the advantages of the Point editor for speed and ease of use outweigh the advantages of Quick C or Turbo C. I can see no disadvantages to my approach in terms of keystrokes, mental effort, or elapsed time to get a debugged .exe file. -- John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.
olsen@eecs.nwu.edu (Jeff S. Olsen) (02/08/90)
>In order to keep from retyping commands when I go between them, I >use ndosedit, which allows me to recall the command line. >(4DOS, Anarkey, ced, and others will do the same). Why not use make? jso
kens@hplsla.HP.COM (Ken Snyder) (02/08/90)
> For example, you don't get a reference manual: you get a book called > _C for Yourself_. Fine if you're learning C and don't already have MS sends a card with QuickC for a full manual set for an additional $20. Their logic was that their on-line documentation is all most people need. It is pretty good. I haven't felt the need to buy the manuals. Ken
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (02/08/90)
In article <3580025@eecs.nwu.edu> olsen@eecs.nwu.edu (Jeff S. Olsen) writes: >>In order to keep from retyping commands when I go between them, I >>use ndosedit, which allows me to recall the command line. >>(4DOS, Anarkey, ced, and others will do the same). > >Why not use make? > I DO use make. That was in the part of the article you edited off! The reason for ndosedit is to go between make, editor, and code view. -- John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.
elund@pro-graphics.cts.com (Eric Lund) (02/08/90)
In-Reply-To: message from ellard@bbn.com
First off, Microsoft C doesn't have an environment. It's baby, Quick C
(included) does. I've never been impressed much by Microsoft's editors.
Borland is alright, if you learn the Wordstar command set. As for the
environment in general, I use Turbo C prolifically, and have gotten used to
it. No rave reviews, but I'm picky when it comes to environments, editors and
interfaces. Turbo C also compiles quicker than Microsoft or Quick C, which
contributes to a more sleek environment.
Eric
ProLine: elund@pro-graphics
UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!elund
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!elund@nosc.mil
Internet: elund@pro-graphics.cts.comschaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) (02/10/90)
In article <25cfc2dc.4a37@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes: | | [Set-up deleted] | | I find that I prefer this arrangement over Quick C. The only disadvantage | is that it doesn't point to syntax errors in the editor after I compile. | But Point will let me have the listing open in one window and the source | in the another, which gives me more information anyway. As far as I am | concerned, the advantages of the Point editor for speed and ease of use | outweigh the advantages of Quick C or Turbo C. This may, indeed, be quite valid for some, but editors are largely a matter of personal preference (I prefer to use vi myself). However, I think I gain enough from the TC IDE to put up with the editor (but, then, I weened on WordStar). But I'm a bit puzzled by the following: | I can see no disadvantages | to my approach in terms of keystrokes, mental effort, or elapsed time | to get a debugged .exe file. How many keystrokes does it take to quit editing, run make, start up CodeView and execute to a specific location in your code? In the TC IDE, the above can be accomplished with a single keystroke. I'd also venture to guess that the whole process takes a bit less time as well. But that isn't where the real time savings comes from. With such an environment, one is (or at least I am) more inclined to crank out little stubs of code to test various ideas during the development process or extract a bit of suspect code and throw together a driver to test it out. One can easily reproduce the setup you describe using UNIX and X Windows (which is the standard workstation here at the UW). I still turn out better, and more thoroughly tested, code by doing the bulk of my work at home. -- Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu) Peace and Prejudice Don't Mix! (unknown add copy)