Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!bu.edu!dartvax!mars!nic!kira!emily!wollman From: wollman@emily.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C compilers Message-ID: <1991May13.044023.12169@uvm.edu> Date: 13 May 91 04:40:23 GMT References: <1991May7.205310.4708@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@uvm.edu Organization: University of Vermont - EMBA Computing Facility Lines: 30 In article <1991May7.205310.4708@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gordon@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Gordon) writes: > > Quick C costs so little because it is only a compiler. QuickC costs so little because MicroSloshed considers it a toy compiler, for people who don't need even a close-to-properly-done compiler. Although the library is much better than the compiler itself. Still, there's not much use for QuickC. I use it occasionally to produce toy programs on my DOS machine. Real programs I do on one of the machines here where I have many megabytes of virtual memory (and about 450 MIPS) and GCC running on all of the machines. Where would this world be without GCC? (*) > Turbo C++ >by itself is about $80 or $90, but add $80 or so and get the Professional >package, which includes a Debugger, Assembler and Profiler. I would >recommend Turbo C++ Professional. I think that intro CS students here are required to buy this now. -GAWollman (*) Answer: without GCC, this world would have several competing commercial C compilers of similar quality. You decide which state of affairs is better. Garrett A. Wollman - wollman@emily.uvm.edu Disclaimer: I'm not even sure this represents *my* opinion, never mind UVM's, EMBA's, EMBA-CF's, or indeed anyone else's.