Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!rutgers!gauss.rutgers.edu!math.rutgers.edu!bumby From: bumby@math.rutgers.edu (Richard Bumby) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: C compiler choices Keywords: msc, tc Message-ID: Date: 1 May 89 21:29:06 GMT References: <589@lakesys.UUCP> Distribution: usa Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 31 Cc: bumby In article <589@lakesys.UUCP> chad@lakesys.UUCP (Chad Gibbons) writes: > This query has undoubtable been experessed before, however, I > never saw it. > > Seeing as how there are two major C compilers for the DOS > environment, there is definately cause for comparison of the two. > . . . . . . > If I may, I would like to leach on some of the net's knowledge of > these two compilers and which one would be the overall supreme choice for > applications which use the full power of a iAPx86 machine. > -- Why look at just these two? There are lots of C compilers out there with all kinds of hidden power. When I was in the market, I was fortunate enough to stumble on an issue of Micro Cornucopia that discussed all of the compilers they could find for the DOS environment. Since I was looking for something for a T-1000, I needed something that could function with little disk storage, and included all the utilities left out of Toshiba's portable DOS. I was led to choose Manx Aztec-C, and I am happy with the choice (although the list of bugs that had been fixed in the version I got made me wonder what new evils might still be lurking out there). Your constraints are different, but existing product evaluations can guide you to the ideal compiler for your needs. Don't limit yourself to the "big 2" -- even if one of them does turn out to be your ultimate choice. -- --R. T. Bumby ** Math ** Rutgers ** New Brunswick ** (in one form or another for all kinds of mail) [bumby@math.rutgers.edu]