Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-entropy!dataio!bright
From: bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Turbo C 2.0 vs MSC 5.1
Message-ID: <2056@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Date: 17 Jul 89 20:41:45 GMT
References: <644@octopus.UUCP> <3607@cps3xx.UUCP> <1169@hydra.cs.Helsinki.FI>
Reply-To: bright@dataio.Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA
Lines: 18

In article <1169@hydra.cs.Helsinki.FI> grano@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
<Another point about Microsoft C that has not been mentioned is that many
<third-party libraries depend heavily upon it. I had to purchase
<Microsoft C 5.1 for my current project for that reason, [...]

If you want to use compiler X, but third-party library Y doesn't support
it, call up the library vendor and request it. Most library vendors are
sensitive to customer demand, but if they don't know that customers
want support for compiler X, they won't think it's worthwhile to support it.

For most libraries, supporting a new compiler is a simple matter of
recompiling the library and then testing it. This means that a library
vendor does not have to sell many packages for compiler X to pay back
the additional development costs. Thus, calling them and requesting it
can make a bigger difference than you might expect.

Not so many PC vendors read Usenet, so complaining here has limited
usefulness.