HELP, WE'RE DROWNING!!
der Mouse
mouse at thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
Sun Jun 23 01:41:52 AEST 1991
In article <76 at gypsy.ims.fhg.de>, sievert at gypsy.ims.fhg.de (Karsten Sievert) writes:
> IK00053 at MAINE.MAINE.EDU (The Artful Death Dodger) writes:
>> [...] Turbo C and Turbo Pascal, even bigger dogs than the system
>> itself is)
> I disagree. Nothing like it on UNIX as far as I know.
Yes, for which I am duly thankful.
> Try it! It's a pitty that it runns only under DOS.
I did (Turbo C, at least). The only advantages of it I can see over
the Sun cc is the fine-grained control over warning generation and a
certain degree of ANSIness. Comparing it to gcc, I see no advantages.
A partial list of disadvantages I find in 2.0 (these are just the ones
I can remember or find in a quick skim of the manuals):
- Memory models
- Not free
- Source not available
- "Integrated" environment's editor is almost unconfigurable
- "text" vs "binary" stupidity in the I/O libraries
- The reference manual says "is available on UNIX systems" about many
routines which are not present in 4.3BSD. It's not just a confusion
of "UNIX" with "System V", either, because they're careful to draw
the distinction at times; eg, see the entries for assert and dup2.
- For some routines, they say "is available on UNIX systems" when this
is not true: there is a different routine, with the same name and
usually with similar functionality, but it is *not* the same.
(chmod is an example.)
- Make is pretty stupid; in particular, it has no default rules, as far
as I could tell.
der Mouse
old: mcgill-vision!mouse
new: mouse at larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list