Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!petunia!news
From: kwong@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Ka Chin Wong)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland C++ vs Microsoft C 5.10
Keywords: windows borland microsoft
Message-ID: <27e7f3b2.12fb@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 20 Mar 91 23:43:46 GMT
References: <350@intertel.UUCP> <7320@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <1991Mar19.231934.2007@borland.com>
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407
Lines: 20



>boyd_m@intertel.UUCP (Mark Boyd) writes:
>>   Microsoft C 5.1 .EXE:  720672 bytes
>>       Borland C++ .EXE:  842848 bytes
>
>Ok guys, anyone care to comment?

I am glad that you mentioned Microsoft C (not Microsoft C++) vs.
Borland C++ (not Turbo C).

You know, in C, all variables are static bound (early bounding),
but C++ allows dynamic bounding (late bounding) by means of
virtual functions.  Would the additional bytes be the overhead
to handle late bounding at runtime?

Let's wait for the Microsoft C++ and do the comparison.


Rick