c60c-4ab@e260-4c.berkeley.edu (Scott Drellishak) (10/19/89)
On this newsgroup and several others, I have heard various complaints and praise for several brands of MS-DOS C compilers. Among these are Turbo C, Microsoft C, Watcom C, Zortech C(++?), and Power C. Since there seems to be a lot of differing opinions of these packages, I would like to hear some comparisons of these compilers from PEOPLE WHO HAVE USED THEM. A lot of the comments seem to be based on "well, I saw in an add" or "I know some- one who uses," neither of which gives very accurate information. I will try to compile and post any responses to this message. Specifically, how useful is each compiler to the serious programmer (ie Is Microsoft C the giant of the field? Is Turbo C a "toy compiler?" Which compiler does the most extensive and effective code optimization? Which compilers are fully and completely in keeping with the most recent version of the proposed ANSI standard? etc)? Share the knowledge, and the world will be a better place. ( Scott Drellishak ( ( "Hey there! Hi there! Ho there! [smack] [smack] [smack]" ( -The Mickey Mouse Club in the Spanish Inquisition
wozniak@utkux1.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) (10/20/89)
I have used both Quick and Turbo C. I would have to recommend Quick C from Microsoft. -bryon-
bumby@math.rutgers.edu (Richard Bumby) (10/21/89)
In article <1989Oct19.014956.2682@agate.berkeley.edu> c60c-4ab@e260-4c.berkeley.edu (Scott Drellishak) writes: > On this newsgroup and several others, I have heard various complaints and > praise for several brands of MS-DOS C compilers. Among these are Turbo C, > Microsoft C, Watcom C, Zortech C(++?), and Power C. Since there seems to > be a lot of differing opinions of these packages, I would like to hear some > comparisons of these compilers from PEOPLE WHO HAVE USED THEM. . . . A number of magazines do this sort of thing on a regular basis. I like the treatment in "Micro Cornucopia". When I was looking for a small-but-powerful C to use on my laptop, I found the wealth of detail in their reviews to be essential to making an informed choice. It would be difficult to do justice to a 5 or 6 page article with lots of tabular comparisons in this format. -- --R. T. Bumby ** Math ** Rutgers ** New Brunswick ** (in one form or another for all kinds of mail) [bumby@math.rutgers.edu]
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (10/22/89)
In article <Oct.20.18.12.58.1989.2251@math.rutgers.edu> bumby@math.rutgers.edu (Richard Bumby) writes: |In article <1989Oct19.014956.2682@agate.berkeley.edu> c60c-4ab@e260-4c.berkeley.edu (Scott Drellishak) writes: |>I would like to hear some |> comparisons of these compilers from PEOPLE WHO HAVE USED THEM. . . . | |A number of magazines do this sort of thing on a regular basis. Yes, but be careful of which magazines. In particular, shy away from Byte reviews. While I've seen good reviews from them, they seemed heavily biased towards recommending the Microsoft C compiler even though their benchmarks found bugs in MSC 5.0 (or 5.1, same thing), mentioned in passing ("...loop optimization produced invalid results..."), but generally ignored. Personally I am distressed when a "production" compiler produces bad code on simple benchmarks, so this attitude surprised me. Good luck, jim frost software tool & die madd@std.com