Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!madd
From: madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland
Message-ID: <25171@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 2 Oct 88 01:04:27 GMT
References: <876@galaxy> <1133@unccvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost)
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: Boston University Distributed Systems Group
Lines: 18

In article <1133@unccvax.UUCP> cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes:
|In article <876@galaxy>, jshah@andromeda.rutgers.edu.rutgers.edu (Jigish Shah) writes:
|> does any one have a preference between MS C5.1 and Turbo C 2.0
|
|Well let me think... which of the above runs under OS/2 and DOS??
|hint, it IS NOT turbo 2.0...

"Compatibility Box" comes to mind.  I believe you meant to say "which
of the above makes executables for OS/2 and DOS", in which case you'd
be right.

People I respect that are forced to use the MSC compiler have no nice
things to say about it.  If you're not interested in OS/2, I'd go for
something else.  I personally like the Turbo environments (better than
ever with a debugger, finally) but I keep hearing good things about
the Zortec (?) compiler.

jim