Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!unmvax!bbx!bbxsda!scott
From: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: MS C vs Turbo C
Message-ID: <201@bbxsda.UUCP>
Date: 5 Oct 89 17:00:51 GMT
References: <23303.25258F1F@urchin.fidonet.org> <1727@naucse.UUCP>
Reply-To: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Organization: Basis International,  Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 23

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 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....

I use Turbo C myself and I am quite happy with it.  However, the Turbo C
linker (TLINK) does not support all of Microsoft's undocumented record
types (The TC manual even acknowledges this).  To use TC's words, the
linker is "lean and mean" (and it is :-).  Therefore, it is possible
that TLINK will not be able to work with some OBJs that were produced by
other languages.  However, Microsofts linker should be able to handle
any OBJ created by TC.

-- 
Scott Amspoker
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM
(505) 345-5232