Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!think!husc6!cmcl2!dasys1!aj-mberg
From: aj-mberg@dasys1.uucp (Micha Berger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Subject: Re: Turbo C or MSC
Message-ID: <1990Mar26.154024.11739@dasys1.uucp>
Date: 26 Mar 90 15:40:24 GMT
References: <924@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <1468@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <9944@pyr.gatech.EDU> <35104@cci632.UUCP> <2602972a.42b0@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Sender: aj-mberg@dasys1.UUCP (Micha Berger at AishDas Society)
Reply-To: mberger1%tasha@graf.poly.edu (Micha Berger at Polytechnic U.)
Organization: AishDas Society: 73-32 173 St, Hillcrest NY 11366, (718) 380-7572
Lines: 28


I bought quickC, because it was cheaper, at least in the stores around here,
then TurboC.

I since realized that TurboC has several functions that QuickC doesn't,
basically aimed toward home programming. (For example, there is no QuickC
function to control the beeper.)

On the other hand, QuickC has features, more geared toward professional
programmers. (For example there is not only a graphics library, but a second,
business graphics library.) It also have special niceties for system
programmers. It allows you to declare a function to be a driver for a given
interrupt, the debugger and integrated system are for both C and MASM, the
inline code is full MASM.

I also liked being full MicroSoft C compatable.

Each claim that they produce faster code. For the same benchmarks. I don't
know how. Comments?

I also underplayed TurboC's advantages. But is my basic categorization (but
TurboC for the home, QuickC for work - business or system programming)
correct?
-- 
					Micha Berger
					mberger1%tasha@graf.poly.edu

Imitatio Dei means never having to say "I'm sorry."