Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!eurtrx!euraiv1!evas From: evas@euraiv1.UUCP (Eelco van Asperen) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: MicroSoft/Borland, execution speed least critical Summary: $250 != $100, man-pages should start on new page,... Message-ID: <790@euraiv1.UUCP> Date: 11 Oct 88 18:14:11 GMT Article-I.D.: euraiv1.790 References: <176@imspw6.UUCP> Organization: Erasmus University EF/AIV,Rotterdam,Netherlands Lines: 53 In article <176@imspw6.UUCP>, bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes: > > 1. Borland invented the idea of selling compilers for $100 or so instead > of $500 or $1500. Microsoft is being forced to play a game they don't > enjoy playing and which they would cease to play tommorrow should > anything happen to Borland. The loyalty issue here is pretty real. The Turbo C 2.0 Professional Version lists for $250; $250 > $100 :-( > 3. Compile speed / fast prototyping. Real world programs get written > in finite sums of time and with finite amounts of psychic energy. > The difference between what I can accomplish with Borland's > integrated environment (which now includes serious debugging) and > 3 second compiles versus what I might could accomplish using the > old-fashioned system, MSC, (Quick C with it's one memory model and > it's failure to recognize half the hardware out there is not a > serious alternative) will show up FAR more than any minute differences > in quality of code generation. I agree with your remark on QC. In my opinion, the real bottleneck is not compile time; it's me, trying to figure out how to solve a problem. With some, repeat _some_, programs TC and MSC generate code of about the same quality; for _some_, MSC wins by a distance. Compile speed is an important factor though and I've always liked TC and its intergrated environment for it. Unless TC 2.0 has much improved code generation, I will at least compile the 'final' version of a program with MSC just to see if it does a better job on that particular program. (I know, not everybody has or can afford two compilers; I just happen to be in an environment that does.) > >Furthermore, when it comes to writing a reference manual for a language > >the boys (and girls) at Borland could learn something from the > >Unix-community........ > > I like UNIX as much as the next guy and possibly more (cf. PCWeek > letters to editor, Oct 3 issue). But UNIX documentation??????? > Do you mean the documentation for Curses, for sockets...?????? You left out the essential part of my remark; 'start each entry on a separate page !' I was not talking about the quality of the docs, just a gripe about their layout. > I am now getting first looks at TurboC 2.0, Turbo Debugger, TASM etc. and, > from what I'm seeing, it looks like MicroSoft has a good deal of catching > up to do. I'm looking forward to TC 2.0 and I hope I won't be disappointed. -- Eelco van Asperen. uucp: evas@eurtrx / mcvax!eurtrx!evas #include earn/bitnet: asperen@hroeur5 #include "We'ld like to know a little bit about you for our files" - Mrs.Robinson, Simon & Garfunkel