Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!noao!arizona!naucse!wew
From: wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: MS C vs Turbo C
Message-ID: <1727@naucse.UUCP>
Date: 4 Oct 89 15:34:01 GMT
References: <23303.25258F1F@urchin.fidonet.org>
Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
Lines: 23

From article <23303.25258F1F@urchin.fidonet.org>, by Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout):
> "A better buy"? Turbo C by a wide margin. A better compiler? Microsoft by a  
> much slimmer margin. Better for mixed-language programming? No contest, MSC is  
> the only real choice for mixed-language programmers. You also didn't mention  
>
I must dissagree with you on this point.  With TC 2.0 I have been able
to link to MS Fortran and assember.  It is also possible to link to
pascal, prolog, and any other package that creates an MS object
module compatible file.  Also, after porting quite a few programs
from Unix to DOS in C using Turbo C, I find it very compatible
and easier to perform.  One good example is GNUPLOT.  Under MSC a
number of Assembly language routines had to be written to handle
the graphics output.  Separate routines were needed for each type
of graphics interface.  With TC all I had to do is use their 
primitives, create generic routines and pass them the parameters 
needed to handle the graphics output.  Programmers around NAU
seem to prefer the Borland products overall.
 
-- 
Let sleeping dragons lie........               | The Bit Chaser
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wilson             (Bitnet: ucc2wew@nauvm | wilson@nauvax)
Northern AZ Univ  Flagstaff, AZ 86011