Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!mimir!hugin!augean!sirius.ua.oz.au!nt!levels!marwk
From: MARWK@levels.sait.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: C compilers - why not TURBO C?
Message-ID: <2764@levels.sait.edu.au>
Date: 14 Nov 89 17:43:19 GMT
References: <0010@starsend.UUCP> <1199@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>
Organization: Sth Australian Inst of Technology
Lines: 21

In article <1199@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, wozniak@utkux1.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) writes:
> 	Yes, but I cannot remember the names of the companies.  C
> compilers that create 386 code are aroung $400+.
> 
> 	Turbo C is a joke and Quick C 2.00 is slow.
> 
> 
> -bryon-


Why is TURBO C a joke?

It is ANSI, has a large number of warning messages, is fast at compiling,
has a superior environment, and I like its debugging facility.

I use TURBO C to to produce code and download it to the VAX (under VMS)
and the ENCORE (under MACH).

Please tell me what I am missing and I may change.

Ray