Recommend a C compiler?
Steve Pool
t-stevep at microsoft.UUCP
Wed Aug 23 03:54:54 AEST 1989
In article <3587 at uwovax.uwo.ca> 2014_5001 at uwovax.uwo.ca writes:
>In article <3642 at ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, SMITHJ at ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>> In article <660054 at hpclwjm.HP.COM>, walter at hpclwjm.HP.COM (Walter Murray) writes:
>>
>>> I know C but am a total novice in the world of PC compatibles.
>>> Which compiler should I buy for my home use? I want good quality,
>>> a commitment to ANSI C...
>
>Turbo C. It seems to have a better ANSI C compatibility than Microsoft.
>(Maybe this has changed under 5.0--I only found an incompatibility in 4.0).
MSC 4.0 is ancient history.
>Perhaps you reviewed an old version of TurboC. If you have the manuals, you
>find that the project facility allows a beautifully elegant way of linking in
>both .LIB's and .OBJ's.
Which is almost identical to the method used in QuickC 1.0, 1.01, and 2.0.
>The QuickC user-interface is driven towards a mouse.
The QuickC UI offers an OPTION, unlike Turbo. Every function performed
with the aid of a mouse may be performed equally well with accelerator
keys.
>Turbo C provides online hypertext manuals.
As does QuickC 2.0, including fully hyperlinked, functioning example
programs for every library function.
>It does not support many display adapters. Glancing through the manual, all I
>could find was CGA/EGA/VGA support. Where is Herc, ATT6300?
Hercules graphics have been supported since version 1.0. AT&T support was
added with version 2.0.
Perhaps you should do more than glance through the manual.
Disclaimer: I'm merely a pitiful summer hire, not involved with QuickC in
any job-related capacity. I use it when writing my OWN code under MS-DOS,
and my personal feeling is that it's a slick piece of work.
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list