Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!shelby!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!davewt
From: davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Okay, you Amiga Types, its time to bash your amiga. :)
Summary: Turbo C bites
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.051955.14232@NCoast.ORG>
Date: 6 Feb 91 05:19:55 GMT
References: <57522.664073195@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca> <91031.190832JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> <91031.215406WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Lines: 32

In article <91031.215406WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu> WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu (Bill Warner) writes:
>Yea, and the ONLY reason I have an AT bridgecard with a dedicated hard drive
>and a VGA card is so I can run Turbo C, Pascal, Debugger, etc.  Nothing on the
>Amiga even comes close.  These programs make writing and debugging a breeze.  I
>write and debug a program on the IBM side then send it over to the Amiga.  As
>soon as Turbo stuff comes out on the Amiga I can sell the bridgeboard and buy a
>3500!
	Personally, I think Turbo C bites. If you want an integrated system,
SAS now provides almost all of this (compile from within the editor, get
highlighted errors, hop to next error, recompile inside editor, etc.),
But that environment sucks for any multi-module application (and if you
aren't using more than one module, you probobly aren't doing it right),
and it chews up excess memory to hold the editor and a copy of the source
file at the same time it is compiling it.
	Also, the C compiler itself seems to be not as good as the SAS
compiler, it seems to be less ANSI compatible, doesn't do as good of
checking of the code for non-compatible functions, etc.
	And out of several debuggers I have used (Turbo C, CodeView (Unix),
etc.) the SAS CodeProbe is easily the best, with full mouse support,
command line recall, ARexx macros, resizeable source and command windows,
etc. I have not found anything that the Turbo debugger does that CPR doesn't
do, or couldn't easily be made to do by writing a simple macro (And writing
macros is NOT something you should think you shouldn't have to do. That is
MS-DOS thinking that you need to have everything inside the program, taking
up space whether most users want/need a feature. SAS provides at least 20 or
so macros, and writing your own is trivial. And by adding features via macros
you don't take up memory for a function you may not use all the time,
and you can extend/change the function yourself, without having to
recompile the debugger itself.)


				Dave