Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!bu.edu!bu-cs!lectroid!bigbootay!jmann
From: jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Wanted: good C environment
Keywords: Turbo C, Microsoft C
Message-ID: <692@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Date: 6 Feb 90 20:26:58 GMT
References: <51736@bbn.COM>
Sender: usenet@lectroid.sw.stratus.com
Reply-To: jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering.
Lines: 24

Quick C has two big drawbacks.  First, its debugger is deficient in a
few ways. It's probably comprable to the Turbo C integrated debugger,
but nowhere near as good as the full  Turbo debugger.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, is that Microsoft seems to treat
this as a learning tool but not as a compiler for real development.
For example, you don't get a reference manual: you get a book called
_C for Yourself_.  Fine if you're learning C and don't already have
a text book.  Also, the compiler is missing a few basic options. In 
particular, you can't produce an assember listing.

On the plus side, it supports all the libraries supported by the full
MS C 5.1, has a good integrated environment (better than Turbo's,
unless you are a WordStar fan), and the best online documentation
I've ever seen.  

Quick C programs which can be debugged by CodeView (which comes with
MASM, for example), so the price of Quick C plus MASM/CodeView is
probably about the same as the price of Turbo C Professional.  

In sum, I'd lean toward Turbo, but Quick C is still a good choice.

PS: The best place I've seen to buy either is MicroWarehouse. They have
great prices and great service.