Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!princeton!idacrd!mac
From: mac@idacrd.UUCP (Bob McGwier)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: QuickC
Message-ID: <287@idacrd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Sep-87 13:14:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: idacrd.287
Posted: Fri Sep 18 13:14:38 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Sep-87 03:23:01 EDT
References: <1155@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: idacrd, princeton, nj
Lines: 32

in article <1155@bsu-cs.UUCP>, null@bsu-cs.UUCP (Patrick Bennett) says:
> 
> In article <2347@i.cc.purdue.edu>, aja@i.cc.purdue.edu (Mike Rowan) writes:
>> > I'll stick with Borland also. They've gotten a bad rap for the bugs in
>> > Turbo C 1.0 (how many bugs were in MASM 1.0 or MS C 2.0?). Though, I have no
>> > idea when a new release is coming from Borland, I suspect they are going 
>> > to make sure it is well debugged.
>> > 
>>     although more expensive, ill say one word.
>> 
>> 	**CODEVIEW**
> 
>   I'll add another....
> 
> **BIG DEAL**
> Patrick Bennett

Either you have never used CODEVIEW or you have never written a big
piece of code.  IT IS <<THE>> reason I use MicroSoft C 4.0 and will use
5.0

I also cannot believe the gripes about a bug here or there in a compiler
that costs under a hundred dollars, heck even a bug or two in those that
cost less than a thousand dollars.  PC users have gotten INCREDIBLY
spoiled by cheap Taiwan clones and refusing to buy compilers that cost
half as much as there computer.  Step back and take the LONG view and
look at what your company pays for a compiler that is full of bugs for
its mainframes and you guys are complaining about compilers that cost
peanuts.

Bob