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.