Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!husc6!panda!teddy!jpn
From: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland
Message-ID: <5028@teddy.UUCP>
Date: 3 Oct 88 16:40:45 GMT
References: <876@galaxy> <1133@unccvax.UUCP> <2722@ima.ima.isc.com> <1142@unisec.usi.com>
Reply-To: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 36

In article <1142@unisec.usi.com> erc@unisec.usi.com (Ed Carp) writes:
>In article <2722@ima.ima.isc.com>, johnl@ima.ima.isc.com (John R. Levine) writes:
>> 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?

Yes.  It's pretty terrible.

>It's aout $75, has an integrated environment,

In which only one memory model is available.  That makes it a TOY, in
my opinion, not a serious development tool!

>and the compiler is pretty quick!

In the tests that I did, the compiler was CONSISTENTLY slower (by as much
as 2 to 1) than Turbo C, and the code generated was CONSISTENTLY slower
and larger!

>I am using it for all of my development work at the moment.

There's not accounting for taste.

>Since I don't care about OS/2 (I think that it is even worse than MSDOS),

At least we agree on something :-)

About the only advantage Quick C had over Turbo C 1.5 was the debugger
capability.  However, with Turbo 2.0, this advantage is gone.

-- 
     john nelson

UUCP:	{decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn
smail:	jpn@teddy.genrad.com