Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-unix!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ptsfa!ihnp4!ihlpm!leder
From: leder@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Leder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Converting MicroSoft C to Turbo C
Message-ID: <1206@ihlpm.ATT.COM>
Date: Mon, 22-Jun-87 11:57:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpm.1206
Posted: Mon Jun 22 11:57:18 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jun-87 06:14:50 EDT
References: <381@aucs.UUCP> <875@kodak.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 60
Summary: not 'nuff said

In article <875@kodak.UUCP>, gardner@kodak.UUCP (dick gardner) writes:
> In article <381@aucs.UUCP> peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) writes:
> >I (finally) got my Turbo C; I'll give you my first impressions about the
> > 
> > [ text removed ]
> >
> >'Nuff said.
>  ^^^^^^^^^|  
> 	  |--> Really?
> 
> You don't mention anything about executing your compiled program.  Forget
> the size differences and execution speed for now, how will you de-bug your
> program?  With MSC & Codeview, it's really easy.  How about Turbo now?


The unfortunate reality of the situation is that I have used codeview so
infrequently because it requires another lllooonnnggg cccooommmppiiilllee
if I hadn't figured on using it in the first place.

> Are you going to insert printf's in your code and re-run it thru your fast
> compiler ...

This does seem like a reasonable thing to do.  Have you tried turbo C or
are you talking from the land of inexperience.

> Having bought MSC v4.0 already, there's not much of an investment in buying
> Turbo C later, ...

THIS is the point! Turbo C is not much of an investment for a lot of
compiler.

> but who in their right mind would buy Turbo C first, and
> THEN MSC in order to get Codeview to de-bug the Turbo program?

You are absolutely correct. No one in their right mind would bother to
buy MSC just for Codeview, especially when you can't get around to
debugging the code because it takes so long to compile.  By the time
the thing is compiled, you can't remember what you were testing in the
first place.  One thing that I can say about the MSC compiler is that it
is not prejudicial about the size of one's code.  It ALWAYS TAKES AN
INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO COMPILE.

I would rather use a compiler that allowed me to "stay on a roll" when I 
am debugging and in touch with the actions of the program than have the
fancy debugger.  After all, how much credit does the debugger get for
your ability to think.  I think that I could add all the printfs that I
would want and recompile many times in the time that it would take you
to compile with MSC.  The extra compiles that I would get (per one of
your MSC compiles) easily gives me more time to pay attention to what I
am doing instead of twiddling my thumbs.  I can see how my changes affect
the code!!

> 
> 	Probably still not " 'nuff said."
> 

Compilers are like religion, aren't they.

Bob Leder - just expressing my opinion and I know its right because its
            mine.