Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!panda!teddy!jpn
From: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Quick C vs. Turbo C
Message-ID: <4506@teddy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Dec-87 15:17:08 EST
Article-I.D.: teddy.4506
Posted: Mon Dec  7 15:17:08 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Dec-87 15:06:05 EST
Reply-To: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 26

I just recieved my MSC 5.0 (finally!), and I must say that Quick C is
a disapointment.  (I also own Turbo C).

Note that I am not particularly interested in the integrated
environment aspect (I like my own editor, and am comfortable with using
"make").  After running a few test programs through the compiler, it
would appear that:

    1.  Quick C runs MUCH slower than Turbo C.  In fact, it really doesn't
	run that much faster than the full MSC 5.0 (at least for small
	programs).

    2.  Code generated by Quick C is ALSO slower than Turbo C.

    3.  MSC 5.0 does generate pretty fast code if you turn on all optimizing
	options, but it is still a VERY SLOW compiler.

Frankly, I can't see any advantage to Quick C at all.  It appears that
Microsoft felt threatened by Borland's Turbo C, and tried to address what
they thought Turbo C's greatest strength was (the integrated environment).
However, I like Turbo for it's quick compilation times, and I don't use
the integrated environment AT ALL!

I am currently running some real comparison programs through all three
programs: TCC, QCL, and CL, and generating compile times, run times, and
executable size.  I'll post my results here.