Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!apple!bionet!ames!amdahl!dgcad!dg-rtp!rti!bcw From: bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer Subject: Re: Turbo C++ 1.0 vs Microsoft C 6.0 Summary: Turbo C++ vs Microsoft C Message-ID: <1990Nov18.193447.15754@rti.rti.org> Date: 18 Nov 90 19:34:47 GMT References: <1990Nov9.130326.657@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Distribution: na Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC Lines: 28 In article <1990Nov9.130326.657@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, jhl@kira.msu.edu (John Lawitzke) writes: > Could someone provide me with a comparison between Turbo C++ 1.0 and > Microsoft C 6.0. I don't want to hear: "Turbo is C++ and Microsoft is > not". I would like to hear about there relative merits as straight C > compilers. Also has Codeview changed between C 5.1 and C 6.0? I can't give a complete comparison of the Borland compilers vs the Microsoft compilers (I don't use the Borland compilers, for reasons that will soon become obvious), but I have used the Microsoft C compiler for quite a while. The major problem with the Borland compilers from my point of view is that they don't support Windows. End of story. There are rumors that they may do so "eventually", and it should be possible to kludge around the problems with copious assembly code, but it's a tremendous pain and not worth doing it for my purposes. If this is important to you, then that may remove Borland from the picture (you might look at Zortech instead, I've just continued to use the Microsoft C because of inertia; I've had it since about C 2.0 or 3.0, I forget which, and it always seemed easiest to just upgrade the compiler rather than go with Zortech, but I've heard that the Zortech C++ is pretty good and it does do Windows). Codeview has changed somewhat between C 5.1 and C 6.0, I believe that it no longer requires such enormous object modules and can live in extended memory. But I hardly ever use Codeview anyway, so I'm not the best person to ask about changes in it. Bruce C. Wright