Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!dptg!att!cbnewsl!daved
From: daved@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (david.dougherty)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: MS C vs Turbo C
Message-ID: <2136@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 Oct 89 12:19:05 GMT
References: <1727@naucse.UUCP>
Reply-To: daved@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (david.dougherty,sf,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 19

In article <1727@naucse.UUCP> wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes:
>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'd love to use Borland's Turbo C, but I can't.  It's just not a robust
compiler.  You see, recently, I purchased TurboTeX from the Kinch Computer
Company; I also bought the source.  Now, TeX and METAFONT are very large
programs.  Turbo C choked.  MSC 5.1 compiled it without so much as a
hiccup.  I've found this to be true in general.  I LOVE Turbo Pascal,
but I just don't think that Borland did things right with their C product.

--
David W. Dougherty @ AT&T Bell Laboratories
ARPA: dwd@attunix.att.COM
UUCP: ...!att!attunix!dwd
TELE: 201/522-6241
MAIL: Rm. E-125; 190 River Road; Summit, NJ 07901