Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!killer!ltf
From: ltf@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Lance Franklin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: High-C Info Request (was: Possible bug in MSC)
Message-ID: <8145@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: 20 May 89 08:02:12 GMT
References: <1071@koko.CSUStan.EDU> <1447@optilink.UUCP> <1659@ozvax.WV.TEK.COM> <205@zycor.UUCP>
Reply-To: ltf@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Lance Franklin)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx
Lines: 35

Because of this bug, and several other problems we've had with MicroSoft C,
the company I work for has been considering alternative compilers for use
on MS-DOS machines.  The primary compiler we've considered is High-C, from
(I think) MetaWare.  I would be interested in any information about the
High-C compiler available.  The main questions we have are:

   1) how ANSI-compatable is the compiler and associated library functions.

   2) how difficult is a conversion from MSC 5.1 to High-C.

   3) Is product-support from the publisher readily available.

   4) Is the product fairly bug-free, and is the optimizer any good (in
      comparison to MicroSoft C.)

   5) Does the publisher charge any license fees when the compiled executables
      are used in a commercial product.

   6) Are you still supplied with the compiler only, with no linker or other
      associated software.

   7) Are the object-modules MSC (and CodeView) compatable, and can MASM/MSC
      modules be mixed with High-C modules.

We have information coming from the company, but we would appreciate a user's
eye view of the compiler, as well as anybody's experience in switching from
MSC to High-C.

Thanx

-- 
+-------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------+
| Lance T Franklin        | | I never said that! It must be some kind of a  |
| ltf@killer.DALLAS.TX.US | | forgery...I gotta change that password again. |
+-------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------+