Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!unisec!erc
From: erc@unisec.usi.com (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland
Summary: Quick C vs. Turbo C???
Message-ID: <1142@unisec.usi.com>
Date: 29 Sep 88 23:21:56 GMT
References: <876@galaxy> <1133@unccvax.UUCP> <2722@ima.ima.isc.com>
Organization: UniSecure Systems, Inc. Newport, RI
Lines: 18

In article <2722@ima.ima.isc.com>, johnl@ima.ima.isc.com (John R. Levine) writes:
> 
> Which of the above is available for $67?  Sure as heck not MS C.  I
> 
> For the price there's no doubt in my mind that Turbo is the way to go.  If
> somebody else is paying for it, take your pick.

Have you tried Quick C?  It's aout $75, has an integrated environment,
and the compiler is pretty quick!  I am using it for all of my
development work at the moment.  Since I don't care about OS/2 (I think
that it is even worse than MSDOS), and I don't believe that the market
(software and job) is there for OS/2, a compiler that supports MSDOS and
most of the UNIX system calls (those that can be supported on a single-user
box, anyway) is important for me to have.  I have written CURSES for DOS,
signal(SIGALRM)-like functions (for both DOS ad UNIX), and have been
eminently satisfied with Quick C.  Any comments?

-Ed