Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!rex!ames!pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!joynson
From: joynson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (David Joynson- RCA)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: C compilers
Message-ID: <33488@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 12 Oct 89 19:54:49 GMT
References: <4515@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> <463@usage.csd.unsw.oz> <1989Oct10.195530.9466@agate.berkeley.edu> <894@occrsh.ATT.COM> <40121@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <2232@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Reply-To: joynson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (David Joynson- RCA)
Distribution: na
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Mtn Vw CA 94035
Lines: 17

Just curious (not wanting to start a flame war), but what about QuickC?
I've seen many opinions about TurboC, MSC, and others, but nothing about
QuickC. I mean, some of us can't afford MSC and still want to produce
object code compatible with MASM. Any thoughts?

Yes, I am aware that QC is a subset of MSC, but I want to read other
peoples thoughts on the subject.

Usual product disclaimer applies.......

===============================================================================
David Joynson                |"Beware the Jabberwok my son. The jaws that bite,
joynson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov | the claws that catch. Beware the jub-jub bird, 
                             | and the frumious bandersnatch!" - Lewis Carrol
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ** Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are all mine and no one elses! **
===============================================================================