Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!bobc
From: bobc@hplsla.HP.COM (              Bob Cutler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Turbo C vs Quick C
Message-ID: <5190004@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 11 Feb 88 01:40:19 GMT
References: <389@lscvax.UUCP>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 33


I've been using QuickC at home now for a couple of weeks.  The integrated
editor/compiler/debugger is very nice.  The only real problem it seems
to have is not allowing full control over the compiler/linker.  I'm
concerned about bugs in the compiler, but since I've never had to
worry about memory models before, the problems I'm having could be self 
inflicted.  QuickC has four memory models  compact, small, medium, and 
large.  It's my understanding that TurboC has a few more.  If only the 
IBM PC's were based on the 68000 ...   

QuickC version 1.0 doesn't support Hercules graphics mode.  TurboC does. 
Since I have a Hercules card, that's been a problem.  Thanks to the
recent posting of information on the Hercules card I can at least draw a
line in graphics mode now.   I called Microsoft and asked them about
Hercules support.  The person I talked to wasn't sure, but thought that
Hercules would be supported in the next revision.  It's possible, but
I wouldn't count on it.

The documentation that comes with QuickC is OK.  There are three books:
a C reference manual (kind of like K&R), a QuickC reference manual that
describes how to use the product, and a library reference manual. 

I wouldn't worry about picking the wrong compiler.  At $53 each, how far
wrong can you go?  Just remember, Microsoft has a $250 compiler and $125
assembler that they'd also like to sell you.


***************** Put usual opinions disclaimer here ************************

                                        Bob Cutler
                                        Hewlett-Packard
                                        Lake Stevens Instrument Division
                                        hplsla!bobc