Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!bbn!bbn.com!ellard
From: ellard@bbn.com (Dan Ellard)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Wanted: good C environment
Keywords: Turbo C, Microsoft C
Message-ID: <51736@bbn.COM>
Date: 5 Feb 90 19:50:48 GMT
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: ellard@BBN.COM (Dan Ellard)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 37
References:


	I've recently inherited an IBM XT, and now I'm looking for a
	good C programming environment for it.  The two popular choices
	seem to be Microsoft C or Turbo C (i.e. when I go to the local
	software stores, that's what they have).  According to the blurbs
	on the side of their boxes, they sound nearly identical (except
	in the area of price, where Turbo C is much more attractive), but
	of course there are a lot of things that I can't tell from reading
	the glossies:

		How do the editors compare?  I have a copy of Turbo Pascal
		3.0 (vintage 1985) and I don't like that editor very much.
		I'd like something much more sophisticated, or the ability
		to use whatever editor I choose and have it interface
		smoothly with the rest of the environment.

		How do the 'integrated environments' compare?  I think that
		the Turbo Pacal 3.0 environment is pretty good-- how do
		these stack up?

		Given that I have a minimal machine by current standards
		(IBM XT with 512K, 20 meg hard disk, Hercules graphics)
		which of these packages will gracefully handle reasonably
		sized programs (~20K source lines) and compile and link
		within a tolerable period of time?

		Are the base packages (Turbo C, QuickC) good enough to do
		development with, or do I really need the 'professional'
		packages?

Thanks,

	Dan Ellard

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ellard -- ellard@bbn.com
This line intentionally not left blank.