Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!spdcc!ima!haddock!suitti
From: suitti@haddock.ima.isc.com (Steve Uitti)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland
Message-ID: <8254@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 29 Sep 88 22:25:10 GMT
References: <876@galaxy>
Reply-To: suitti@haddock.ima.isc.com (Steve Uitti)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 57

In article <876@galaxy> jshah@andromeda (Jigish Shah) writes:
>
>does any one have a preference between MS C5.1 and Turbo C 2.0

	I have MSC 5.2 and (currently) Turbo C 1.4.

Turbo C 1.4:
+ Takes up far less disk space for a usable running compiler.
+ Costs less (was $65 vs > $300 for me)
+ Runs three times as fast
+ Produces code that runs about the same speed as MSC 5.1
+ Produces code that is generally slightly smaller than MSC 5.1
+ Has some of the best lint-like capabilites I've seen
+ Produces code that works.
- Much C code has not been ported to it.
[I see here on the net that newer versions have new features, and may
 fix things].

MSC 5.1
+ Has a prototypes generator
+ Has a debugger (codeview)
+ Comes with a Turbo C-like compiler (quick C), which
  is unfortunately brain dead
+ Has a code omptimizer (which you can't use, because it breaks
  at least something when used in almost any largeish package)
+ Has supports OS/2 (I don't care)
- Takes up to 5.5 MB of your hard disk for std libraries
- Is slow
- Often produces code that doesn't work
- Doesn't always parse correct C code properly
- Is amazingly complex
- Costs an arm and a leg
- Isn't better than Turbo C
- Much C code has not been ported to it.

This last point, "Much C code has not been ported to it", is a minus
for both compilers.  The truth is that MSC 4.0 has lots of stuff
ported to it.  None of the stuff I've tried works under MSC 5.0 or
5.1.  The compiler has given me almost nothing but trouble.

	** flame on (this is the point of this note) **

	I would very much like to see us (the user community) support
good inexpensive compilers, like Turbo C.  Not (just) by buying it,
but by using it (writing stuff in it, porting stuff to it).

	I only bought MSC so that I could compile other people's
stuff.  I bought the wrong compiler!  MSC 5.1 != MSC 4.0 !!!  I can't
stand writing anything with the compiler, because it takes so damned
long for it to get to the next spot where it won't compile my code.
Don't you dare tell me to get a faster machine.  I timed it.  Turbo C
compiles three times faster.  If I had a faster machine, Turbo C would
still be three times faster.  When I upgrade to the new 137 MHz 80986
based box, Turbo C will compile 437,000 lines per minute and MSC 5.1
will only compile 145,000 lines per minute.

	Stephen.