Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!uunet!dalcs!dalegass
From: dalegass@dalcs.UUCP (Dale Gass)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Turbo C 2.0 / pricing reality, buil
Message-ID: <3058@dalcs.UUCP>
Date: 26 Oct 88 13:05:55 GMT
References: <182@imspw6.UUCP> <16800385@clio>
Reply-To: dalegass@dalcs.UUCP (Dale Gass)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Lines: 17

In article <16800385@clio> berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu writes:
>Borland's development environment works ok on a 100% compatible
>machine, but the Microsoft stuff continues to work on generic
>ms-dos computers.  To those of us with an investment in machines
>that aren't 100% compatible, that's a big selling point.

What about TCC (the command-line version)?  It will work on any generic 
MS-DOS machine, just like MSC will.  I sincerely doubt that QuickC works any
better on generic machines; I would expect it has even less of a chance.

TCC allows you to compile many modules with only having to load TCC once
(i.e. TCC one.c two.c three.c will copmile all three without reloading 
TCC).  I believe MSC re-loads it's different passes for each module, which
results in much slower compiles.

-dalegass@dalcsug.uucp
{watmath|uunet}!dalcs!dalcsug!dalegass