Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdragon!violet!jjboritz
From: jjboritz@violet.waterloo.edu (Jim Boritz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland
Message-ID: <8816@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 1 Oct 88 03:38:52 GMT
References: <876@galaxy> <1133@unccvax.UUCP> <2722@ima.ima.isc.com>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu
Reply-To: jjboritz@violet.waterloo.edu (Jim Boritz)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 31

I have had most of my experience with MSC 5.1, and I have "played" with
Turbo C a bit.

Turbo is faster.
Turbo C 1.5 is/was cheap, and didn't come with a debugger.
Turbo C 2.0 is more expensive, and a debugger still costs more on top of
that.

MSC 5.1 supports MS Windows and it supports OS/2.  
MSC has had Codeview for a long time now.  There are also versions available
for Windows and for OS/2.

Compilers in general are not toys.  They are very complex pieces of
software. They have large manuals and lots of options. 

If all you are interested in is DOS and porting from *NIX systems, then the
choice is tough to make, but Turbo would probably win right now because of
speed.

If you are looking towards the future and towards other environments, then
there is no choice.  MSC is the the only candidate.  It is a complete,
robust compiler with lots of flexibility.  

But wait, there is now another contender in the C compiler market.  
Watcom C 6.5.  It has received consistently good reviews and produces code
that is without a doubt faster that either MSC or Turbo C.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Boritz			jjboritz@violet.waterloo.edu
University of Waterloo 		{uunet,utai,clyde}!watmath!violet!jjboritz