Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!mit-eddie!rutgers!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!news From: randall@Virginia.EDU (Ran Atkinson) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer Subject: Re: C & Pascal compilers: recommendations desired Message-ID: <1990Dec15.141850.3405@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Date: 15 Dec 90 14:18:50 GMT References: <1990Dec14.012748.1@frigga.claremont.edu> <25923@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <28832@usc> Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU Reply-To: Ran Atkinson Followup-To: comp.os.msdos.programmer Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 75 In article <25923@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: >>I'm pretty sure that the unanimous response will be to use either Turbo C >>2.0 or Turbo C++ 1.01, since both are fast and VERY easy to use. In article <28832@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: %Microsoft C is said to have the best optimisation on the block. In fact, empirical testing has shown that essentially all of the C compilers from major vendors (MS, Borland, Zortech, Watcom, etc.) have about the same level of optimisation. A recent article (this summer) in _Computer_Language_ gives actual code examples and demonstrates that with trivial changes to the source code any of the tested compilers can come out on top. The net result is that "optimisation" isn't much of a reason to buy a compiler. The biggest areas of differentiation are really the libraries that come with the compiler (this is where MS really doesn't perform well compared with Borland or Watcom) and the quality of the development environment (both Borland and MS are considered better than Watcom here). There have been widespread gripes posted here about problems with MS C 6.0 and a lot of folks I know who are locked into the MS compilers have decided to wait for the next minor release of the compiler before upgrading. In the past, some of us have seen DOS versions 2.0 and 3.0 and 4.0 and MS C 4.0 and 5.0 and decided that when dealing with MS it is sometimes best to wait for the X.1 version so that most of the new bugs are fixed. Borland isn't immune to this sort of problem. TC 2.00 had a number of bugs that were fixed with TC 2.01 (though the patches were widely available on the net -- Simtel20 had them). TC++ 1.00 also has had some problems which is why they are now shipping TC++ 1.01 which fixes most of these problems. I personally have used Borland compilers and debuggers for a while now and have been very happy with them both for performance and for cost. Other people have different needs and have been happy with other compilers and tools. I'm not sure it really makes all that much difference for Pascal and C compilers. Borland and Zortech share the C++ market for the moment. >> For pascal, Turbo Pascal 6.0 looks like the hot ticket -- an >> interface builder is part of the application program now. Plus you >> get access to utils such as Turbo Drive (extended memory compiler -- >> runs out of extended memroy), Turbo Assembler (more masm compatible >> than masm), Turbo Profiler (profiles function speeds and >> bottlencks), Turbo Editor (AWESOME editing environment), and Turbo >> Debugger (best debugger on the market, competed only by MultiScope). However not everyone LIKES integrated environments. I for one usually use MicroEMACS with a script that lets me invoke TCC or dmake from inside the editor and use the MKS Korn Shell and MKS Toolkit outside EMACS in order to make MSDOS as UNIX-like as possible. I find I'm much more productive this way than I would be using the integrated environment. Your preferences will probably be different -- which is the point I'm trying to make. Also, even folks who don't use Borland compilers can purchase the TURBO DEBUGGER & TOOLS and since Turbo Debugger supports CodeView executables there is no problem getting and using these other items if they are what one needs. >> The only thing that I can think of as not good about Borland >> products is that they are not Windows 3.0 compatible. Well Borland have privately demoed TC++ for Windows and indicated that they plan to have a TP for Windows product as well so that while this is true now it also will be changing. The main problem with Borland as compared with say MS or Watcom or Metaware is that they don't really support ROM-able code or protected-mode 386 code. For ROM work, I'd use MS C every time because there are fewer hoops to jump.