Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!aurora!eos!ames!hao!gatech!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!aja
From: aja@i.cc.purdue.edu (Miek Rowan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: TurboC vs QuickC vs MS C/v5.0
Message-ID: <2634@i.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 23 Feb 88 00:46:04 GMT
References: <788@imsvax.UUCP>
Organization: PUCC Unix Groupies Vols....
Lines: 20
Keywords: Tech Journal comparison

In article <788@imsvax.UUCP>, bob@imsvax.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes:
>  
>           TurboC generally  checked out  as having  more features than
>      MC5, one more memory model, inline code, graphics  support (which
>      QuickC has  but 5.0  apparently doesn't),  and low-level keyboard
>      support.     TurboC  checked   out  as   having  slightly  better
>      documentation than  MC5 as well.  As far as I could tell, reading
>      the entire article, Turbo C  was  the  winner,  pure  and simple.
>      This is  all the  more remarkable  considering the  prices of the
>      compilers in the comparison.

	One thing I have to give usoft credit for is, in my opinion,m
ousatanding documentation in 5.0.  I use both compilers, often, and have come
to never open the tc manuals.  They have had a while to get this right, but
that doesnt change the fact that it is good docs.  And pretty too. :-)

Now if the tc integrated debugger turns out as good as codeview ......


miek