MS C vs Turbo C

[Loyde W Hales]

>I'd love to use Borland's Turbo C, but I can't.  It's just not a robust
>compiler.  You see, recently, I purchased TurboTeX from the Kinch Computer
>Company; I also bought the source.  Now, TeX and METAFONT are very large
>programs.  Turbo C choked.  MSC 5.1 compiled it without so much as a
>hiccup.  I've found this to be true in general.  I LOVE Turbo Pascal,
>but I just don't think that Borland did things right with their C product.

No insult (really), but you really should try again.  I love Turbo C.  I've
played with other C compilers, both on the PC and on the Suns, and Borland's
product is BY FAR my favorite.  It produces clean executable, catches
essentially all my errors when properly set, and in a dream to use.

I can't imagine what your problem is, unless you're depending on the
interactive editor when you've used most of your memory.  (If I'm wrong,
sorry; this is what is looks like.)  If that's all it is, there are several
alternatives.  TC took an approach of providing interactive edit/debug tools
that, of course, take a lot of space.  If you don't want them, use the
command-line compiler.  If you do, grab yourself EMS.  TC uses it well, and
it's worth the money.

Also, if your problem is that the source code gets too large, you can take
the same approach.  First, use the command-line (saves memory).  Also, you
can break into different files (partial compilation is better anyway).
Finally, EMS will allow you to ``spool'' in read.  TC does have a problem
with very large files, partially because it tries to keep so much information
around to speed compilation and aid in debug.  I'd rather do the bright thnig
(smaller files) than lose this.



-=-

                                Department of Computer and Information Science
Loyde W. Hales, II                      The Ohio State University
lwh at cis.ohio-state.edu          2036 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, Ohio  43201