jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (11/14/90)
Microsoft seems to be making a nice effort to make Quick C more competitive with Turbo C. Quick C owners upgrading to 2.5 can purchase CodeView for $35. Since I've seen at least one catalog that sells Quick C plus Assembler for under $70, this means you can get a "Quick C Professional" (to steal Boreland's terminolgy) for about $50-$70 less than Turbo C Professional. Jim Mann Stratus Computer jim_mann@es.stratus.com
lsalomo@hubcap.clemson.edu (lsalomo) (11/14/90)
From article <3079@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>, by jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann): > Microsoft seems to be making a nice effort to make Quick C more competitive > with Turbo C. Quick C owners upgrading to 2.5 can purchase CodeView for > $35. > > Since I've seen at least one catalog that sells Quick C plus Assembler for > under $70, this means you can get a "Quick C Professional" (to steal > Boreland's terminolgy) for about $50-$70 less than Turbo C Professional. > > > > Jim Mann > Stratus Computer > jim_mann@es.stratus.com Competitive price-wise...How do they compare performance-wise, and in the user-interface, where it counts? Cheers, Q - the "Q"uestor for knowledge (, a degree, etc.) lsalomo@hubcap.clemson.edu ibmman@clemson.clemson.edu ============================================================================= "Gee Wally, I think there's something wrong with the Beaver." =============================================================================
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (11/15/90)
In article <11607@hubcap.clemson.edu>, lsalomo@hubcap.clemson.edu (lsalomo) writes: |>From article <3079@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>, by jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann): |>> Since I've seen at least one catalog that sells Quick C plus Assembler for |>> under $70, this means you can get a "Quick C Professional" (to steal |>> Boreland's terminolgy) for about $50-$70 less than Turbo C Professional. |> |>Competitive price-wise...How do they compare performance-wise, and in the |>user-interface, where it counts? I prefer the Quick C interface to the Turbo C 2.0 interface. It supports the mouse, editing is much easier, help is much easier and much more useful, and you can compile, link, etc. easily. The integration of assembler into 2.5 seems much nicer than Turbo Assembler, which is strictly a command line assembler. As for performance, I've seen QC/TC comparisons and the results are mixed. QC produces faster code for some things, TC for others. Jim Mann Stratus Computer jim_mann@es.stratus.com
ghenniga@nmsu.edu (Gary Hennigan) (11/15/90)
In an article jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >I prefer the Quick C interface to the Turbo C 2.0 interface. It supports >the mouse, editing is much easier, help is much easier and much more useful, >and you can compile, link, etc. easily. The integration of assembler into >2.5 seems much nicer than Turbo Assembler, which is strictly a command line >assembler. > >As for performance, I've seen QC/TC comparisons and the results are mixed. >QC produces faster code for some things, TC for others. I just got TC++ 1.0 and their IDE (Integrated Debugging Environment?) is extremely nice. It too provides mouse support and it has the ability to step or trace through your code with much the same features as the debugger, eg., watching variables, setting breakpoints, etc., without leaving the TC++ environment. It also gives you the option of going to Turbo Debugger for better control over debugging and mixed module programs. Also, using "projects", you can edit, compile, and link with other modules such as Turbo Assembler, and yes it has a windows-like environment so that multiple files can be edited, a file in each window with the ability to tile and so forth. Lastly, the "professional" products come with a profiler which, if you're going to try and squeeze as much as possible out of your code, is invaluable. I don't have any affiliation with Borland so I say this from a user's point of view, Borland always seems to be just one step ahead of MS in whatever they do. One good example of this is that their assembler doesn't have a lot of the bugs associated with MSASM and they have a set of simplified segement directives that make it much easier to interface assembler and C. The last thing that Borland gives you that is nice is that their debugger comes with a utility to allow you to convert CODEVIEW debugging info to theirs, so you can debug MS stuff with their product. Good thinking and marketing! Just my two cents, -- Gary Hennigan +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu, henninsf@maxwel.NMSU.Edu + + Department of Electrical Engineering, Grad Student + + Physical Science Laboratory (ASS)istant systems programmer + +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
miller@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com (Mark Miller) (11/20/90)
You may want to try the Turbo C++ Integrated Development Environment. It supports mouse, multiple overlapping windows, running external programs from within the IDE, and numerous other features that ease programming. It also links seamlessly with the full blown Turbo Debugger, which (IMHO) blows the socks off CodeView. I use TD's "remote debug" feature to debug another computer over a serial link. This is a feature I didn't even see in the Codeview that came with MSC 5.1 (Maybe included in 6.0?) I also prefer the TC++ options setup to those in QuickC and MSC 5.1. In TC++ you can use all memory models and set up all options from the menu structure. QuickC, as I recall, does not address all memory models from the integrated environment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mallsop@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Mark Allsop) (11/21/90)
In article <11607@hubcap.clemson.edu> lsalomo@hubcap.clemson.edu (lsalomo) writes: >From article <3079@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>, by jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann): >> Microsoft seems to be making a nice effort to make Quick C more competitive >> with Turbo C. Quick C owners upgrading to 2.5 can purchase CodeView for >> $35. >> >Competitive price-wise...How do they compare performance-wise, and in the >user-interface, where it counts? The version of Quick-C I used about a month ago insisted on medium memory model only only only. Has this been lifted? Also, setting up the environment was incredibly difficult. Have Microsoft improved that at all? Unless these problems (which are only the ones I remember off the top of my head- there were more) have been fixed, I don't think Turbo-C and Quick-C can be compared. Quick-C just does not compete. It is still in the starting gate while Turbo has finished the race, had a shower, gone home and started dinner. Cheers, -Mark. *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* | Mark Allsop Computer Scientist | | email: mallsop@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au The Statistical Laboratory | | Phone: At MacUni: (61 2) 805-8592 Macquarie University, Australia | | Fax : : (61 2) 805-7433 / \ | | | This one goes up to 11.....| *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* | "Laughter is the closest distance between two people." | | -- Victor Borge | *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (11/22/90)
In article <793@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>, mallsop@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Mark Allsop) writes: |>The version of Quick-C I used about a month ago insisted on medium memory |>model only only only. Has this been lifted? Also, setting up the environment |>was incredibly difficult. Have Microsoft improved that at all? Yep. As of 2.0 (which came out over a year ago now) you were able to specify which memory model you wanted. I've had no trouble setting up the environment. It seemed simple. I don't know how they did it in release 1, so I have no basis for saying it is "easier" though I'd guess that it is. |>Unless these problems (which are only the ones I remember off the top of my |>head- there were more) have been fixed, I don't think Turbo-C and Quick-C can |>be compared. Quick-C just does not compete. It is still in the starting gate |>while Turbo has finished the race, had a shower, gone home and started dinner. |> There are several places where QC is ahead however. The integration of assembler into 2.5 is much cleaner than what I saw with TASM, for example. Jim Mann Stratus Computer jim_mann@es.stratus.com
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (11/23/90)
In article <11607@hubcap.clemson.edu> lsalomo@hubcap.clemson.edu (lsalomo) writes: | Competitive price-wise...How do they compare performance-wise, and in the | user-interface, where it counts? I like the Codeview debugger environment, although I don't (have to) use it much. Haven't tried TC in a while, the old version was not a good fit with the way I want to debug. You may love it. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me