Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!Kumar_Swaminathan.SVSantaClara@Xerox.COM
From: Kumar_Swaminathan.SVSantaClara@Xerox.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Turbo C vs Quick C
Message-ID: <11858@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: 16 Feb 88 22:15:58 GMT
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 72

In article<341@dalcsug.UUCP> Mr.John Robinson had responded to my comparison of
Quick C and Turbo C. This is what i think of his response : 

 In article <11792@brl-adm.ARPA>, Kumar_Swaminathan.SVSantaClara@Xerox.COM
writes:
> All things considered  as for as capabilities (lack of them),  I recommend
quick
> c., based on following 3 points:
> 
> 1. "Quick"/"Turbo"  means one thing: No serious optimization. At least with
> quick C, It is compatible with ms's  "real" C compiler. So i can use qc to
> develop,and build the program with reg. c compiler for production.
> 
   Be that as it may, the postings I have seen indicate very little difference
   in execution time between TurboC and MSC 5.0.


>>Quote from PC Mag. (Vol 6 #16 Sep '87) : "Microsoft C compiler ties or beats
Turbo C on most numeric, screen write and file operations."   Mr.Robinson sys
that  the posting  that he had seen indicates very little difference in
execution time.  My point here is that with MSC  you get more optimization. I'm
sure  whatever (john's)source that did that comparison must have used a
ridiculously simple benchmark like sieve.  One can only compare the degree of
optimization by running the test  on programs that can be optimized.

> 2. Turbo C has no debugger, while qc does.
 
    This is true.  My experience with Microsoft languages included 
    Microsoft Fortran v 4.0.  This includes CodeVeiw which is a very
    nice debugger.  However, I prefer to use debuggers to find errors
    in MY programs, not THEIR compiler!
    Also, Borland has announced a debugger to TurboC in the 'first
    quarter of 88'.  Till then the one posted on compuserve will do
    fine.  So, for that matter, will Codeview which comes with
    MASM 5.0.


>>This is exactly the point i was trying to make in the next item (#3 ). With
MicroSoft (The "big" name company), 
 i get the OS, compiler, linker AND the  debugger from one company. So when john
or I have a problem with any of them we call one company for help. With TC you
get the compiler from one company and the debugger from who knows where?.  So,
who the hell do you call when you have problems debugging in TC?.
 
> 3.qc is from Microsoft, and for whatever it's worth it  is a big name company,
> as for as future considerations (With other compilers from MS).

    I guess you failed to notice that Borland has shipped over 500,000
    copies of Turbo Pascal.  Also, they shipped over 30,000 copies of
    TurboC in the first WEEK.  They now claim over 100,000 copies.  I'm
    sure that Borland is heartbroken, given this, that you don't consider
    them a 'big name company' :-).


>>If only john will pay more attention to what he reads. Does anyone see
anything that i have written that says Borland is NOT a "big name company"?.  I
was comparing compilers from two different companies, and i made a statement to
the effect that Microsoft is a "bigger name company". See the point that i made
above.  Moreover don't throw those numbers at me.  Don't  u (short for 'you',
in case someone didn't  have enough brain to understand this  in my last mail)
know that almost every PC in the world that runs DOS gets  that OS from MS?
 
> Finally, ofcourse it depends on the application that u want to develop with
> either of compilers.. If u can buy each of 'em for about 60 bucks, why not buy
> both  of them, and evaluate yourself ?.

    This is very good advice even if the English is a little weak! 


>> While I thank Mr. Robinson knowing that I can now go to him whenever I have
any problems with my English, I cannot but feel that if john had pursued his
career in English instead of programming, he  would have made it, ... probably.