Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!spdcc!ima!johnl From: johnl@ima.ima.isc.com (John R. Levine) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland Message-ID: <2722@ima.ima.isc.com> Date: 29 Sep 88 16:44:07 GMT References: <876@galaxy> <1133@unccvax.UUCP> Reply-To: johnl@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine) Organization: Not much Lines: 23 In article <1133@unccvax.UUCP> cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes: >In article <876@galaxy>, jshah@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Jigish Shah) writes: >> does any one have a preference between MS C5.1 and Turbo C 2.0 >Well let me think... which of the above runs under OS/2 and DOS?? >hint, it IS NOT turbo 2.0... Which of the above is available for $67? Sure as heck not MS C. I have both MS C 5.1 and Turbo 1.5 (since the 800 number for the 2.0 upgrade has been busy every time I've called.) Depending on what I'm doing, sometimes I use one, sometimes the other. MS C with the optimization turned all the way on has a more sophisticated optimizer, though it doesn't seem to generate code all that much better than Turbo. Turbo, on the other hand, supports multiple addressing models in the integrated environment and also allows in-line assembler as well as explicit reference to machine registers in C code, sometimes useful in grotty low-level stuff. For the price there's no doubt in my mind that Turbo is the way to go. If somebody else is paying for it, take your pick. -- John R. Levine, IECC, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349, +1 617 492 3869 { bbn | think | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something Rome fell, Babylon fell, Scarsdale will have its turn. -G. B. Shaw