mallsop@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Mark Allsop) (05/23/91)
I am involved in a large project programming a database program. Currently we are using Microsoft C 5.1, but some people have suggested that Turbo would be a better compiler to use. I really don't want to start a MSC vs. Turbo war on this newsgroup, but I would be very interested to find out the advantages of each compiler. I am thinking specifically of things like memory managment, ease of use of extended memory, overlay support, sizes of executables, speed of compiled programs, etc. If anyone knows of any differences (not 'i think Turbo is better 'cause my auntie said it had a nicer box' if you can healp it, please) I'd be very appreciative to hear from you. +Mark. -- Mark Allsop Computer Scientist email: mallsop@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au The Statistical Laboratory Phone: At MacUni: (61 2) 805-8792 / \ Macquarie University, Australia Fax : : (61 2) 805-7433 | This one goes up to 11.....
miller@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com (Mark Miller) (05/23/91)
I switched from MSC 5.1 to Turbo C (now using Borland C++) two years ago and haven't looked back. I switched due to the ease of setup and use of the programmer's environment. I find Borland's Integrated Development Environment much more intuitive than the MS Programmer's Workbench. All the options are available through pull-down menus. More recently, Borland came out with exquisite handling of EMS/XMS for its development environment in BC++. The BCX environment will run in extended memory and give you the benefit of all available memory for compiling operations. In addition, through their object library, you can access EMS/XMS through your programs. No financial ties with Borland, just a happy user. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mark R. Miller | Boeing Commercial Airplane Company | Seattle, WA | Internet: miller@b-mrda.boeing.com | Voicenet: (206) 237-0960 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hartnegg@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Klaus Hartnegg) (06/01/91)
mallsop@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Mark Allsop) writes: >we are using Microsoft C 5.1, but some people have suggested that Turbo would >be a better compiler to use. I really don't want to start a MSC vs. Turbo war >on this newsgroup, but I would be very interested to find out the advantages of >each compiler. I am thinking specifically of things like memory managment, ease >of use of extended memory, overlay support, sizes of executables, speed of >compiled programs, etc. ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Some weeks ago I got dbwrendr, a ray tracing program that was apparently compiled with Microsoft C. All source was included so I tried recompiling it with Turbo-C 2.0. Result: it now calculates the same picture in half the time! btw: I do NOT have a numeric coprocessor. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Klaus Hartnegg, Kleist-Str. 7, D-7835 Teningen, Germany | include standard Bitnet : hartnegg@dfrruf1 or hartnegg@cernvm | disclaimer here! Internet : hartnegg@ibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de |