Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!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: <3196@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Date: 21 Nov 90 17:04:50 GMT
References: <3079@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <11607@hubcap.clemson.edu> <793@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>
Sender: usenet@lectroid.sw.stratus.com
Reply-To: jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 29

In article <793@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>, mallsop@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Mark
Allsop) writes:
|>The version of Quick-C I used about a month ago insisted on medium memory
|>model only only only.  Has this been lifted?  Also, setting up the
environment
|>was incredibly difficult.  Have Microsoft improved that at all?
Yep. As of 2.0 (which came out over a year ago now) you were able to
specify which memory model you wanted.

I've had no trouble setting up the environment. It seemed simple. I don't
know how they did it in release 1, so I have no basis for saying it is
"easier" though I'd guess that it is.

|>Unless these problems (which are only the ones I remember off the top of my
|>head- there were more) have been fixed, I don't think Turbo-C and Quick-C can
|>be compared.  Quick-C just does not compete.  It is still in the
starting gate
|>while Turbo has finished the race, had a shower, gone home and started
dinner.
|>

There are several places where QC is ahead however. The integration of
assembler
into 2.5 is much cleaner than what I saw with TASM, for example.


Jim Mann
Stratus Computer
jim_mann@es.stratus.com