Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!equinox!jimi!hammond!elvis
From: elvis@hammond.cs.unlv.edu (Frederick Haab)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Subject: Re: Help choosing C Compiler for specific use
Keywords: C
Message-ID: <1991May23.064606.24717@unlv.edu>
Date: 23 May 91 06:46:06 GMT
References: <1991May22.225803.23546@cbnewsd.att.com>
Sender: news@unlv.edu (News User)
Reply-To: elvis@jimi.cs.unlv.edu (Frederick Haab)
Organization: UNLV Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
Lines: 70

In article <1991May22.225803.23546@cbnewsd.att.com> knudsen@cbnewsd.att.com (michael.j.knudsen) writes:
>I'd like some advice on choosing between the many C compilers
>available for MSDOS systems.  Before we get into good old religious
>flame wars, let me say something about what I want it for:
>
>I'm porting a large C program, which I've already written and debugged,
>from a 68000 and a 6809 system (running OS-9).
>There are about two dozen source.c files and a dozen header.h files,
>plus a makefile.  The 68000 executable is over 100K.
>This program is totally graphics oriented, with its own windows,
>and uses both the mouse and the keyboard, plus some extra hardware,
>so I need good libraries for that sort of stuff.

I personally use Turbo C++, and with the included utilities you really
only get the normal C keyboard routines, plus a couple of extra ones,
and NO mouse support, although interupts are supported and you can
write the routines yourself (I did.)

>I can't use any "toy" C systems (Quick C?) or need any tutorials.
>Do I need Microsoft C, or can Borland's Turbo C handle this?
>What other brands should I consider?
>
>I don't expect to write a lot of code from scratch, but will have
>to do some heavy editing in the system-dependent areas.
>
>Also I've learned the hard way that "ports" dont' just come up and run
>the first time, so I don't mind paying for fancy debugging tools
>a la Turbo, *if* they can be run alongside my own grafix.

The built in turbo debugger (if you are using the built in editor)
will switch screens between the editor and a user output window,
this works with graphics as well as text.

>Also I can never remember what .c file some function is in, so good
>browsing tools would be nice.  I have a good Emacs editor so I
>don't care about the built-in editor, tho I hear that Turbo forces
>you to use their Wordstar-like editor (I could live with that).

Turbo does NOT force you to use their editor.  With all the swapping
the compiler does between memory and disk (I only have 640k), I
often use a separate editor and a makefile.  The standard package
does come with a make utility.

>With Turbo C++ under $100 (?), it's tempting, but should I pay
>extra for Microsoft C?  If I go Turbo, should I shell out extra for
>their "Professional" version?

The professional version comes with Turbo assembler (this allows
inline assembly language right inside your C code.) and the
Turbo Profiler, which I believe helps in optimizing your code,
but I don't have it so there may be more to it.

>It must run on a Compaq II '286 with 640K and a 20 Meg HD
>(or should I look for another computer, sheesh!?!)

I run it on an XT with 640k and 20 meg HD, and it's slow
(some of us students can't afford to just up and buy a
new computer), but it works, and if it works on mine it'll
more than likely work on yours.

>All followups or email replies appreciated.  Thanks, mike k
>-- 
>"What America needs is A Thousand Points When Lit..."
>
>	knudsen@iceland.att.com

	--==-- Frederick Haab --==--

P.S. I posted so I can be corrected, but I'm pretty sure all
     information is correct.