Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!boerner
From: boerner@ut-emx.UUCP (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Subject: Re: Turbo C or MSC
Message-ID: <26942@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 26 Mar 90 20:05:15 GMT
References: <924@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <1468@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <9944@pyr.gatech.EDU> <35104@cci632.UUCP> <2602972a.42b0@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <1990Mar26.154024.11739@dasys1.uucp> <1990Mar26.174313.1976@eng.umd.edu>
Reply-To: boerner@emx.UUCP (Brendan B. Boerner)
Organization: UT Austin Computation Center, Microcomputer Technologies
Lines: 23

In article <1990Mar26.174313.1976@eng.umd.edu> dank@eng.umd.edu (Daniel R. Kuespert) writes:
>Both Quick C and Turbo C's integrated debuggers are toys,
>more suitable for home use; with the Turbo C Professional package you get
>Turbo Debugger, which is a considerable improvement on the Turbo C

I have seen comments similiar to the above and finally decided to find
out what I am missing.  I have spent the last year working on a 33,000+
line application written in Turbo Pascal and estimate that I have used
the Integrated Enviroment ~90% of the time.  The other 10% of the time
I used the Turbo Debugger in order to debug assembler.

It is true that I was at home while writing the code (:-)), but I think
that I was able to be more productive since a) the IDE compiled/linked
my code faster than the command line compiler, and b) I could compile
and run, not compile, load the debugger, load the .EXE, and then run.

Comments?
Brendan
--
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/471-3241
Microcomputer Technologies	The University of Texas @ Austin
Internet: boerner@emx.utexas.edu     UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!boerner
BITNET:   CCGB001@UTXVM.BITNET 	AppleLink: boerner@emx.utexas.edu@DASNET#