Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!tank!eecae!cps3xx!usenet
From: usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Turbo C 2.0 vs MSC 5.1
Message-ID: <3607@cps3xx.UUCP>
Date: 30 Jun 89 16:37:50 GMT
References: <644@octopus.UUCP>
Organization: Engineering, Michigan State U., E. Lansing MI
Lines: 30

in article <644@octopus.UUCP>, mikem@slp.UUCP (Mike Morris) says:
> 
> 
> I am considering purchasing Borland's Turbo C 2.0 professional package and 
> am wondering what kind of experiences other netland users have had using it.  

Having used both professionally, I'd highly recommend Turbo over
Microsoft. On the basis of just the C compiler Turbo has two features
that aren't found in Microsoft. (1) Turbo has inline assembler. 
(2) Turbo can declare functions as interrupt routines. For both of
these in Microsoft you need a separate assembler module (unless I
missed something in the manual). Turbo's manuals are also easier
to find things in.

CUrrently, I'm trying to decide if I like Zortech C better than Turbo C.
The facilities for generating interrupt functions are far easier to use
and the online help TSR is great. I use MicroEmacs instead of going
through Turbo's integrated development env. so I have no access to their
online help when editting. Unfortunately, Zortech has no inline
assembler, but does provide a macro package that makes generating
assembler modules far easier. I haven't tried ZOrtech's debugger yet.
I generally use codeview or turbo debugger and look at the stack frames
by hand.

Hope this helped,

John H. Lawitzke           UUCP: Work: ...uunet!frith!dale1!jhl
Dale Computer Corp., R&D         Home  ...uunet!frith!ipecac!jhl
2367 Science Parkway       Internet:   jhl@frith.egr.msu.edu
Okemos, MI, 48864                             [35.8.8.108]