Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!purdue!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ketch.cis.ohio-state.edu!schanck
From: schanck@ketch.cis.ohio-state.edu (Christopher Schanck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Turbo C 2.0, EMS, and style
Message-ID: <29388@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 10 Dec 88 05:31:52 GMT
References: <1734@edison.GE.COM>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer and Information Science
Lines: 46

In article <1734@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes:
>I keep reading all of this griping by people who want to compile
>huge programs while they have various extra shells and tools 
>loaded into RAM.  Frankly I haven't much patience with those
>arguments.  Borland has a VERY GOOD product at a reasonable price.
Well, I am one of those people, so I'll respond. I think I did mention that
I thought Borland beat anything else around in a previous post.

>1) If your program is too big, then cut it into smaller separately
>  compiled modules.  Turbo C makes this easy with its 'make' either
>  from the command-line or the integrated environment.  
>  
>  You should be doing this anyway just as a matter of good programming.
True. But what about the situation where you are running out of RAM
when you are linking? As far as I have been able to tell, changing
module sizes has no effect on this problem.

>2) If you want to run custom shells, sidekick, and such all at the
I don't, so I won't. ;-)

>3) If you don't like any of the above, use the command-line versions
>  of TC and get the stand-alone Turbo Debugger.  I'm sorry but the
>  upgrade from Turbo C 1.5 to Professional Turbo C 2.0 was ONLY
>  about $ 100.   That is still cheaper than anything Microsoft sells
>  and frankly at that price it is a steal !
Yes it is cheaper than Microsoft, but why compare them; it is obvious
Borland still wins the Price/Performance comparison. My comparison is
to the Borland of yesteryear; the comparison is not as favorable. Besides,
If they can sell a version (cheap) with only an integrated debugger, why
not sell a version (cheap) with only a standalone debugger? That would
suit me just fine; as the integrated editor is too slow for my taste (too
slow wrt screen speed).

As I have said, it only because the product is so *good* that these
comments arise; if it was an inherently poor product, this conversation would
be meaningless.

Have a nice Christmas everyone, break starts tomorrow for me!!!!
(poo, no net access..)

Chris

-=-
"My brain is NOT a deadlock-free environment!!!!"
--- Christopher Schanck, mammal at large.
schanck@flounder.cis.ohio-state.edu