karthur@codas.att.com (Kurt_R_Arthur) (12/24/87)
Since the release of Microsoft C version 5 and Turbo C 1.5, I am going to retire my old C compiler (upgrade is not a possibility) and purchaseone of the following: 1. Microsoft version 5 2. Borland Turbo C version 1.5 3. Datalight Optimum C (Version unknown). Considerations: 1. Price approximate MAIL ORDER prices: Turbo $ 57 (source for libraries $150) Microsoft 265 (is source included/avail?) Datalight 95 (is source included/avail?) 2. MS-DOS Performance - faster the better (of course!) Compilation speed is of (next to) no importance, but execution speed is imperative! 3. OS/2 compatibility - I want to be able to write applications for all flavors of OS/2 (standard, extended and the Presentation Manager using dynalinks, etc.) without buying another compiler. 4. Libraries: small, medium, large, huge, graphics, etc. 5. Debug environment is nice, but not necessary. 6. Integrated environments without a command line interface will immediately eliminate a compiler from the competition (I have an editor I like already). Experiences, comments, statistics, bugs, better prices (if known) are appreciated. If I get enough data I will post them to the net. Thanks in advance, Kurt Arthur Software Services of Florida.
manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) (12/25/87)
In article <1455@codas.att.com> karthur@codas.att.com (Kurt_R_Arthur) writes: >Since the release of Microsoft C version 5 and Turbo C 1.5, I am going to retire >my old C compiler and purchase one of the following: > > 1. Microsoft version 5 > 2. Borland Turbo C version 1.5 > 3. Datalight Optimum C (Version unknown). >Experiences, comments, statistics, bugs, better prices (if known) are >appreciated. I don't know the Datalight compiler nor do I know how library-compatible it is with the others. That's an important consideration if you use any canned commercial or PD C libraries. MSC and Turbo are the two most supported with Lattice following closely. I've got both Turbo and the full MSC 5.0. I really like Turbo's editor and its general speed by comparison to MSC. I also like the in-line assembler (I know, I know... gross nonstandardization but if portability is an issue you don't use assembler code anyway). However, in the first 30 minutes I discovered that Turbo doesn't like my EGA (a Mitsuba) and anything compiled with Turbo would crash my machine. This includes a pre-compiled MicroEMACS I pulled off some d/l board that I later discovered was compiled using Turbo. A friend also had similar trouble on a different EGA board. That made Turbo unusable for me since my main development machine has an EGA and many of my clients do too. This problem makes Turbo a poor choice for outside-world development. MSC provided the most seamless change of environment for me. It also includes a wealth of library functions that MSC has needed for a long time (maybe MS took a cue from Lattice here). The compiler seems to run a little faster than 4.0 as do the executables however the execs are a little fat compared to MSC 4.0. The only trouble I had with the conversion was #undefing the toupper and tolower macros if ctype.h is loaded. Calls like toupper( getchar() ) will not work properly if the macros are used. In fact, I've been unable to get the toupper/lower macros to work with any function as an argument. Quick-C is nice for quick 'n dirty programming, like writing a cr/lf converter, but a pain for anything larger. I also think it's inferior to Turbo's editor, ergonomically speaking. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------- + Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. NYC + decvax!philabs!cmcl2!hombre!magpie!manes Magpie BBS: 212-420-0527 + uunet!iuvax!bsu-cs!zoo-hq!magpie!manes 300/1200/2400