Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!crackers!transfer!lectroid!angmar.sw.stratus.com!jmann
From: jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: CodeView and Quick C
Message-ID: <3082@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Date: 14 Nov 90 16:10:49 GMT
References: <3079@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <11607@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Sender: usenet@lectroid.sw.stratus.com
Reply-To: jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 24

In article <11607@hubcap.clemson.edu>, lsalomo@hubcap.clemson.edu
(lsalomo) writes:
|>From article <3079@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>, by
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann):
|>> Since I've seen at least one catalog that sells Quick C plus Assembler for
|>> under $70, this means you can get a "Quick C Professional"  (to steal 
|>> Boreland's terminolgy) for about $50-$70 less than Turbo C Professional.
|>
|>Competitive price-wise...How do they compare performance-wise, and in the
|>user-interface, where it counts?

I prefer the Quick C interface to the Turbo C 2.0 interface.  It supports
the mouse, editing is much easier, help is much easier and much more useful,
and you can compile, link, etc. easily. The integration of assembler into
2.5 seems much nicer than Turbo Assembler, which is strictly a command line
assembler.

As for performance, I've seen QC/TC comparisons and the results are mixed.
QC produces faster code for some things, TC for others.
                          

Jim Mann
Stratus Computer
jim_mann@es.stratus.com