Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!cg-atla!fredex
From: fredex@cg-atla.UUCP (Fred Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: C compilers
Message-ID: <7798@cg-atla.UUCP>
Date: 22 Oct 89 00:27:19 GMT
References: <0010@starsend.UUCP> <1199@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> <271@wsl.UUCP>
Reply-To: fredex@cg-atla.UUCP (Fred Smith)
Organization: Agfa Compugraphic Division
Lines: 21

In article <271@wsl.UUCP> john@wsl.ie (John Allen on wsl) writes:
>In article <1199@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> wozniak@utkux1.cs.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) writes:
>disagree with you. Both have their flaws (as have all other compilers).
>I use both products as well as many others (MSC, QUICKC, TURBOC, TURBOPASCAL, ZORTECH) and find neither suitable for everything I do.
>
>However I don't find either a joke or particularly slow. (might be on a 4.77Mhz 8088, but that's the machines fault).




Well, even on an 8088 system Quick C and Turbo C are one (#*&%$ of a lot
faster than most other compilers, even though the underlying hardware
is about as slow as molasses climbing a hill in January! In fact, I would
submit that fast compilers, such as turbo or Quick, are MOST useful on a
slow machine because they remove much of the tedium from a development
cycle!

I was unaware that Turbo was funny!  I haven't used it, but know many
who do. I am a Microsoft C user and it aint funny either!

Fred