Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!edison.cho.ge.com!rja
From: rja@edison.cho.ge.com (rja)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Which C compiler ?
Message-ID: <9007191856.AA00749@edison.CHO.GE.COM>
Date: 19 Jul 90 18:56:41 GMT
References: <1446@doitcr.doit.sub.org>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: rja <rja@edison.cho.ge.com>
Organization: GE-Fanuc North America
Lines: 16

With trivial differences in source code style, each of
the compilers tested by Computer Langauge could be shown
to be "more optimising".  The real conclusion was that
there aren't significant differences in the optimisers
between modern MSDOS compilers whether Watcom, Borland,
Microsoft, ...

For my own part, I've heard enough bad reports about 
Microsoft C 6.0 that I won't use it.  I've found Borlands
TC 2.0 and TC++ 1.0 to work fine in production use and
the original reason I went to TC 2.0 was disgust with
MS C 5.1.   A lot of people seem happy with Watcom and
Zortech as well.

I'll take another look if/when MS C 6.1 or MS C++ appear
(neither is an announced product, but you get my drift :-).