Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!mtune!mtunb!dmt
From: dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Turbo C questions
Message-ID: <1011@mtunb.ATT.COM>
Date: Tue, 28-Jul-87 08:30:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtunb.1011
Posted: Tue Jul 28 08:30:55 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Jul-87 05:46:05 EDT
References: <572@rlgvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmt@mtunb.UUCP (Dave Tutelman)
Organization: AT&T Information Systems - Lincroft, NJ
Lines: 51

In article <572@rlgvax.UUCP> cliff@rlgvax.UUCP writes:
>I've been using TurboC productively now for a few weeks, and have just
>taken the opportunity to examine the interactive environment.  Perhaps I'm
>missing something, but I really can't see the utility of it, especially
>since the editor is single window/buffer.  Are projects any better than
>makefiles (the deficiencies of Turbo's make aside)?
>
>Can somebody reveal some advantage of tc over tcc and a good editor to me?
>
   I can think of two reasons to use the interactive environment (and two
   reasons not to):
     +	The "message" window not only contains an error listing for the
	most recent make, it will bounce the cursor in the "edit" window
	to correspond to the offense highlighted in the "message" window.
	Of course, if you never get compiler errors, this won't matter
	to you  :-)
     +	The "project"-make file is much simpler to prepare than a real
	makefile.
     -	The "project"-make facility is much less capable than a real
	makefile.  If all you do is C-compile and link, then project is fine;
	if you want to do anything else (make documentation, make archive,
	MASM, etc), then you need a real make.
     -	Depending on what I'm programming, the lack of a second edit window
	can be a real bummer (e.g.- anything complex enough to require
	its own header file).

My own modus operandi is to use the integrated environment for most of
my work, but use a multi-window editor for (1)preparation of files initially,
and (2) any restructure of the program that has significant related
ramifications in more than one file.

I've also noted that:
   +	For debugging programs that receive their input interactively
	(that is, after they're called and running), the "one-keystroke
	Run" of the integrated environment is a small but worthwhile
	advantage.  (Really, the advantage is one keystroke back to
	the editor, WHERE YOU WERE BEFORE.)
   -	For debugging programs that get their input as command line
	arguments, I usually have to "escape to DOS" to do any
	worthwhile debugging.  This disadvantage cancels the ease of
	getting back to where you were in the editor.

>| Cliff Joslyn, Computer Consoles Inc., Reston, Virgnia, but my opinions.
>| UUCP: ..!seismo!rlgvax!cliff

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|    Dave Tutelman						|
|    Physical - AT&T  -  Lincroft, NJ				|
|    Logical -  ...ihnp4!mtuxo!mtunb!dmt			|
|    Audible -  (201) 576 2442					|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+