kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick) (03/12/91)
Is there a substantial difference between quick c and regular microsoft c? By this I do not mean the compiler front end, rather, the availabilty of important header files like dos.h that allow me to do complicated bios calls with out defining GDT structs and the like? Also, are there differences in the memory models the two compilers suppport? In the object code produced? Thanks, -- Chris Kushmerick kciremhsuK sirhC kushmer@bnlux0.bnl.gov <===Try this one first kushmerick@pofvax.sunysb.edu
<BMS101@psuvm.psu.edu> (03/22/91)
Quick C is MSC compatible the major difference is that you can only write for D
OS in Quick and not the Windows Kernal nor the O/S 2 thing are supported(thing
is appropriate for this time of night). Other than that and the size restrictio
n there isn't much difference.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
BBB CCCC D
B B T C C D EEE
BBBB OO R RRR N NN TTTT OO C OO DD D E E
B B O O R NN N T O O C O O D DD EEEE
B B O O R N N T O O C C O O D DD E
BBBB OO R N N TT OO CCCC OO DD D EEEEE
Luck is directly proportional
to how hard one works.
Bradley Small
bms101 at psuvm
bms101@psuvm.psu.edu
Is it really programming when it works right the first time?
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ddoherty@ics.uci.edu (Donald Doherty) (03/22/91)
In article <91080.224635BMS101@psuvm.psu.edu> BMS101@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >Quick C is MSC compatible the major difference is that you can only write for D >OS in Quick and not the Windows Kernal nor the O/S 2 thing are supported(thing >is appropriate for this time of night). Other than that and the size restrictio >n there isn't much difference. I use QuickC for Windows 3 programming. Of course, you must own the Windows SDK. Don D.
BMS101@psuvm.psu.edu (03/28/91)
I don't program for Windows or OS/2. Other than that do you know any difference
between Quick and MSC 6. I don't (the front end). I now, use Quick only to por
t the applications that I had written in it previously to Turbo C++. Please no
religious flames on this matter, if I had a reason to stick with MS I would but
right now I can't think of one. I like Quick and that is what I learned on but
I would like to painlessly slip into objects and working in an environment that
supports them will work out better for me in the end. I cannot justify the add
ed expense of purchasing either Borland C++ or MSC 6 and the SDK since I neithe
r use or program for windows. Maybe when I get enough RAM and a Fast enough Mac
hine to use Windows to it's fullest capabilities then I'll worry about it or
(Buy a MAC) that is what windows is trying to be isn't it?
-----------------
B O R N T O C O D E !
Luck is directly |BRADLEY SMALL | Is it really "PROGRAMMING"
proportional to how |BMS101 AT PSUVM | when it works right the
hard one works! |BMS101@PSUVM.PSU.EDU | first time.