Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!texbell!uhnix1!moray!urchin!p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org!Bob.Stout From: Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Recommend a C compiler? Message-ID: <20036.24F0AA3B@urchin.fidonet.org> Date: 21 Aug 89 11:48:27 GMT Sender: ufgate@urchin.fidonet.org (newsout1.26) Organization: FidoNet node 1:106/506.6 - Fulcrum's Edge, Spring TX Lines: 87 In an article of <15 Aug 89 17:20:55 GMT>, (Walter Murray) writes: >I know C but am a total novice in the world of PC compatibles. >Which compiler should I buy for my home use? I want good quality, >a commitment to ANSI C, responsiveness in fixing bugs, and good >documentation. I expect to be doing a variety of applications, >including graphics. I noticed you've already received a few answers, but nothing too comprehensive, so here goes: Microsoft C Not recommended for home use. Too expensive and extremely slow 5.1 ("MSC") compile times. Also not very good for a novice and below average graphics support. In the plus column, MSC does set the pace for PC compilers and is quite good in ANSI compatibility and documentation is excellent. Currently required for OS/2 or MS Windows programming. Responsiveness to bug reports is next to non-existant ("wait for the next version"). The included CodeView debugger is long past being state-of-the- art. Includes Quick C (see below) for faster development. Turbo C 2.0 Very popular for good reason. Affordable and the fastest ("TC") compile times in the business. Graphics support is excellent but not too speedy. Documentation is voluminous but lacks examples - use the on-line THELP facility. A novice will need some other book(s). Good ANSI and MSC compatibility. Borland won't admit bugs very often, let alone fix them. Best bet is their toll call BBS which contains all the latest patches. Although their "integrated environment" (editor, compiler, and debugger) is seductive to tyros, be forewarned that everything in the package is a memory hog. The Turbo Debugger included in the Professional Pack is excellent. Zortech C/C++ FAIR WARNING OF POTENTIAL BIAS: My compiler of choice. 1.07 ("ZTC") Comparing apples to apples, cost with the separate Zortech C Debugger is about the same as TC. Compile times are comparable to TC with the optimizer disabled. Optimized, compiles in roughly the same time as MSC, but produces generally better code. Documentation is marginally adaquate but includes useful examples. Also includes an excellent on- line help facility. ANSI and MSC compatibility is a little less than the others, but has steadily improved. Excellent support (known bugs are admitted and work-arounds suggested) from Walter Bright's (the author's) BBS, although Zortech's own support line is less useful - i.e. more typical. Graphics support is better than MSC, less than TC though faster. The available C debugger is almost as good as Borland's. Going with the full C++ package raises the price above Borland, but gives an excellent and economical introduction to C++ (Cfront 1.2 compatible in the current release). Quick C 2.0 Microsoft's "baby" compiler is actually quite good and a best ("QC") buy among the majors. Code is often as good as, or better than, its "big brother", graphics support is up to TC levels and much faster, and the bundled begugger is actually better than CodeView in most respects. Paper documentation borders on being non-existant (the reason for the low price?) though. It tries to make up for it by including an excellent and comprehensive on-line help system. Another "integrated environment" compiler but one which (unlike TC) supports mice and/or your favorite editor. All other MSC comments apply. Mix Power C Not a world class compiler, Mix deserves mention here simply because it is the world's greatest buy. For the price of a decent tutorial ($20 - sic!), you get an excellent tutorial and a very good ANSI comforming compiler. This bears repeating, the documentation for beginners is the best available - period. I usually recommend folks start with Power C and then migrate to another compiler as their needs evolve. Including the complete library source and their quite good debugger will still leave a few pennies change from a $50 bill. As to the compiler, it's not bad, generating fast though not particularly tight code. It's especially good for applications requiring excellent floating point support. Watcom C Generates the world's best code at the cost of the world's worst compile times (makes MSC look speedy!) Also claims "100%" ANSI complaince - well, they're almost there. Outstandingly good floating point operations, challenged only by Mix. A large part of its performance is due to the non- standard (i.e. 3rd party libraries may be a problem) practice of passing arguments to functions in registers. This can be disabled at the cost of performance dropping into MSC territory. Most other MSC comments apply here as well, including the higher cost and the inclusion of a "baby" compiler (Watcom Express C - not as good stand-alone as QC) to overcome glacial compile time objections.