chad@lakesys.UUCP (Chad Gibbons) (05/01/89)
This query has undoubtable been experessed before, however, I never saw it. Seeing as how there are two major C compilers for the DOS environment, there is definately cause for comparison of the two. I have had a chance to use both MicroSoft and Turbo versions of C compilers for less than perhaps five minutes and have not read a great deal of literature on either of them. I can not, therefore, make a good value judgement on which one to use for major application work. I am led into an interesting paradox between the two, due majorly to the fact of MicroSoft's reputation, and reviews of Turbo. I often see ads for TurboC given statistics on it's speed in areas of compile time, execution time, and code size. In addition, Turbo has the advanced debugger which I have used in the Pascal environment. I have never had the chance to use CodeView in any environment, and thus can't judge it. I do seem to recall that Codeview does not yet have support for 386 Virtual-86 mode, so there is one point for Turbo. I have also heard reports of numerous bugs within MicroSoft's version: alias optimization may be invalid, far points being switched with nears, etc. So this almost puts me to going with Turbo without a doubt. However, knowning MicroSoft, I must hold some doubts. If I may, I would like to leach on some of the net's knowledge of these two compilers and which one would be the overall supreme choice for applications which use the full power of a iAPx86 machine. -- D. Chadwick Gibbons, chad@lakesys.lakesys.com, ...!uunet!marque!lakesys!chad
todd@stiatl.UUCP (Todd Merriman) (05/02/89)
In article <589@lakesys.UUCP> chad@lakesys.UUCP (Chad Gibbons) writes: > Seeing as how there are two major C compilers for the DOS >environment......... There are a lot more than just two major C compilers for MSDOS. Indeed, professional programmers have at least 10 full-featured C compilers to choose from, and late-comer Borland is not always considered to be amongst the best for professionals. For the hobbyist who only wishes to "cheap-out" on a toy C compiler, Turbo C is fine, but, if you make a living at programming, stop and take a look before you waste $139.95. ...!gatech!stiatl!todd Todd Merriman * 404-377-TOFU * Atlanta, GA
bumby@math.rutgers.edu (Richard Bumby) (05/02/89)
In article <589@lakesys.UUCP> chad@lakesys.UUCP (Chad Gibbons) writes: > This query has undoubtable been experessed before, however, I > never saw it. > > Seeing as how there are two major C compilers for the DOS > environment, there is definately cause for comparison of the two. > . . . <stuff omitted> . . . > If I may, I would like to leach on some of the net's knowledge of > these two compilers and which one would be the overall supreme choice for > applications which use the full power of a iAPx86 machine. > -- Why look at just these two? There are lots of C compilers out there with all kinds of hidden power. When I was in the market, I was fortunate enough to stumble on an issue of Micro Cornucopia that discussed all of the compilers they could find for the DOS environment. Since I was looking for something for a T-1000, I needed something that could function with little disk storage, and included all the utilities left out of Toshiba's portable DOS. I was led to choose Manx Aztec-C, and I am happy with the choice (although the list of bugs that had been fixed in the version I got made me wonder what new evils might still be lurking out there). Your constraints are different, but existing product evaluations can guide you to the ideal compiler for your needs. Don't limit yourself to the "big 2" -- even if one of them does turn out to be your ultimate choice. -- --R. T. Bumby ** Math ** Rutgers ** New Brunswick ** (in one form or another for all kinds of mail) [bumby@math.rutgers.edu]
rdas@suntops.UUCP (Rob Das) (05/04/89)
In article <589@lakesys.UUCP> chad@lakesys.UUCP (Chad Gibbons) writes: > > This query has undoubtable been experessed before, however, I >never saw it. > > Seeing as how there are two major C compilers for the DOS >environment, there is definately cause for comparison of the two. I have >had a chance to use both MicroSoft and Turbo versions of C compilers for >less than perhaps five minutes and have not read a great deal of >literature on either of them. I can not, therefore, make a good value >judgement on which one to use for major application work. I am led into >an interesting paradox between the two, due majorly to the fact of >MicroSoft's reputation, and reviews of Turbo. For what it's worth... I've been using Microsoft C for about 5 years now. I have never run accross any of the bugs that you said might exist. The compiler is THE one of choice for many very large and successfull software companies. For instance, I worked at Lotus Development Corp. for 4 years prior to comming to Sun Microsystems. Both Lotus and Sun use Microsoft C for their PC work. I've done some VERY demanding applications using it (Networking, TSRs, etc.). At Lotus, all the high end compilers were evaluated and Microsoft was the one they chose. Maybe that has changed since I worked there. (I've heard that WATCOM C is quite good). Codeview is a very nice source level debugger that includes full expression evaluation. However it does not work very well (if at all) for TSRs and interrupt handlers. I would reccommend Periscope for those. Sorry I can't comment about Turbo C. I've never used it. However NEVER by a compiler based on the ads. It's easy to doctor the performance test suites to suit any particular compiler. I've heard that Turbo C compiles MUCH faster than Microsoft C. If that is your criteria, it may be a wise choice. Like I said .... for what it's worth........... Robin Das rdas@tops.sun.com
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (05/05/89)
Define toy C compiler? If you're referring to Turbo C's optimizing abilities,
then you are correct. Otherwise, I want to know what your beef is with
Borland.
JCA
UUCP: {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil
INET: jca@pnet01.cts.com