[comp.sys.ibm.pc] Turbo C vs Quick C on mouseless laptop

kroe@sbcs.sunysb.edu (KiYun Roe) (01/11/90)

I'm soliciting opinions about Turbo C and Quick C.  I need a good,
simple C compiler that can run off of a 1Mb RAM disk and/or a single
1.44Mb floppy (i.e. a very basic laptop).  I'll use it for programs
that are at most a few thousand lines of source code.  Most of the time
I'll be writing stuff to run under Unix, but I may write a few DOS
utilities for myself.

If you can, please address the following issues (not necessarily in
order of importance) along with anything else you think is important:

(1) Keyboard interface.  I'm not going to have a mouse.  How usable is
the system without one?  I read somewhere that using Quick C without a
mouse is inconvenient.

(2) Debugger.  I'm looking at these particular products because I want
an integrated environment with a good, solid source-level debugger.  It
appears that the debugger built into Turbo C is not quite as complete
as the Quick C debugger, but I wonder if I can compensate by getting
Turbo Debugger.  Then again, maybe I won't be able to shoehorn Turbo C
and Turbo Debugger together onto my system.

(3) Unix compatibility.  How compatible are the libraries with a BSD
flavor UNIX?  How compatible is the compiler with ANSI and K&R?

Since I'm an experienced C programmer, I doubt that I'll get much out
of Quick C's hypertext help system.  PC Week did a survey in which
Turbo C edged out Microsoft C and Turbo Debugger really womped on
CodeView.  For these reasons, I'm leaning towards the Turbo C
Professional package, but stop me if I'm making a mistake.

I appreciate any assistance you can give me.  Please send responses to
me directly, so we don't clutter up the net.

KiYun Roe					kroe@sbcs.sunysb.edu
Department of Computer Science
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY  11794-4400			(516) 632-7675
KiYun Roe					kroe@sbcs.sunysb.edu
Department of Computer Science
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY  11794-4400			(516) 632-7675