Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!ames!lll-winken!uunet!ficc!cliff
From: cliff@ficc.uu.net (cliff click)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Turbo C 2.0 vs MSC 5.1
Summary: MSC vs TurboC
Message-ID: <5002@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 14 Jul 89 13:02:11 GMT
References: <644@octopus.UUCP> <3607@cps3xx.UUCP> <7368@cg-atla.UUCP> <14015@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 17

In article <14015@haddock.ima.isc.com>, suitti@haddock.ima.isc.com (Stephen Uitti) writes:
> MSC 5.0 has
> infinite bugs, is slow to compile, has a horribly complicated
> command line interface, [...]
> I'm told that MSC 5.1 is better than 5.0 - that it doesn't die
> when compiling stuff, and that it produces correct code more
> often.  

True; don't use 5.0, get 5.1.  It does produce better code than TC 2.0,
just alot more slowly.  

I use TC 2.0 for all my development, and MSC 5.1 for the final release code.

-- 
Cliff Click, Software Contractor at Large
Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!cliff, cliff@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5368 (w).
Disclaimer: lost in the vortices of nilspace...       +1 713 568 3460 (h).