Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!psueea!parsely!bucket!leonard
From: leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re^2: Trouble compiling flip with TurboC 1.5
Message-ID: <1583@bucket.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jul 89 06:59:02 GMT
References: <14517@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <26514@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Rick's Home-Grown UNIX; Portland, OR.
Lines: 22

ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes:

>While I'm on the soapbox, let me note that before I bought TC, I bought
>a number of magazines and read a number of reviews of it.  NOT ONE REVIEW
>noted any of the BRAIN-DEAD FEATURES of TC 1.0/1.5 (I can say they were
>brain-dead with certainity because they were eliminated in TC 2.0), most
>of which were stupid, arbitrary deviations from **IX norms.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but in the MS-DOS world, **IX compatibility
is not going to be a review criterion. Very few of the magazines that
review MS-DOS software are likely to even be aware of these **IX "norms".

Compiler reviews generally assume that you are going to be *writing*
code, not *porting* it. 

BTW, I'm not a much of a C programmer, so I'm curious, how well does
ANSI C conform to these "norms"?
-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short