Turbo C vs Quick C

[John Robinson]

In article <11792 at brl-adm.ARPA>, Kumar_Swaminathan.SVSantaClara at Xerox.COM writes:
> All things considered  as for as capabilities (lack of them),  I recommend quick
> c., based on following 3 points:
> 
> 1. "Quick"/"Turbo"  means one thing: No serious optimization. At least with
> quick C, It is compatible with ms's  "real" C compiler. So i can use qc to
> develop,and build the program with reg. c compiler for production.
> 
   Be that as it may, the postings I have seen indicate very little difference
   in execution time between TurboC and MSC 5.0.

> 2. Turbo C has no debugger, while qc does.
 
    This is true.  My experience with Microsoft languages included 
    Microsoft Fortran v 4.0.  This includes CodeVeiw which is a very
    nice debugger.  However, I prefer to use debuggers to find errors
    in MY programs, not THEIR compiler!
    Also, Borland has announced a debugger to TurboC in the 'first
    quarter of 88'.  Till then the one posted on compuserve will do
    fine.  So, for that matter, will Codeview which comes with
    MASM 5.0.

> 
> 3.qc is from Microsoft, and for whatever it's worth it  is a big name company,
> as for as future considerations (With other compilers from MS).

    I guess you failed to notice that Borland has shipped over 500,000
    copies of Turbo Pascal.  Also, they shipped over 30,000 copies of
    TurboC in the first WEEK.  They now claim over 100,000 copies.  I'm
    sure that Borland is heartbroken, given this, that you don't consider
    them a 'big name company' :-).
> 
> Finally, ofcourse it depends on the application that u want to develop with
> either of compilers.. If u can buy each of 'em for about 60 bucks, why not buy
> both  of them, and evaluate yourself ?.

    This is very good advice even if the English is a little weak!