Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!mit-eddie!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!ucsdhub!sdcsvax!nosc!humu!uhccux!todd
From: todd@uhccux.UUCP (The Perplexed Wiz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: turbo c
Message-ID: <595@uhccux.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jun-87 02:47:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: uhccux.595
Posted: Tue Jun 16 02:47:56 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jun-87 06:20:27 EDT
References: <736@sdcc18.ucsd.EDU>
Reply-To: todd@uhccux.UUCP (The Perplexed Wiz)
Organization: U. of Hawaii, Manoa (Honolulu)
Lines: 23
Keywords: turbo c bugs

In article <736@sdcc18.ucsd.EDU> ee163adj@sdcc18.ucsd.EDU (Steven "B.J." Martin) writes:
>I read in last weeks PC week that Microsoft is coming out with Quick C and
>MSC 5.0 and 5.0 will come with Quick C.  Looks like Microsoft is afraid
>Borland will take over their compiler business (what's next Quick Pascal,
>can you imagine Microsoft advertising it as compatible with Turbo).

FYI: I moved a couple of programs written in Microsoft C 4.0 that had
a lot of interrupt calls [int86() & intdos()].  They compiled fine
with no changes using Turbo C 1.0 and ran ok too.  I've also been writing
programs using Turbo C and then compiling them on a VAX 8650 running
Ultrix ok too.  Needless to say, I'm very pleased with the portability
of code written using Turbo C so far.  A real time saver.

I saw Bill Gates on "The Computer Show" the other night demoing Quick C.
It looks like it has a number of advantages over Turbo C.  Will
hold off making a judgement until I get my Microsoft C 5.0/Quick C
upgrade though...todd

-- 
Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii Computing Center
UUCP:		{ihnp4,seismo,ucbvax,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!nosc!uhccux!todd
ARPA:		uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL
INTERNET:	todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU