home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.iconn.net!news
- From: thecrow@iconn.net (The Crow)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc,comp.programming
- Subject: Re: Which is better?
- Date: 2 Jan 1996 02:49:58 GMT
- Organization: I rule the world
- Message-ID: <4ca6gm$1o1@news.iconn.net>
- References: <4bk4de$qcr$1@mhafn.production.compuserve.com> <4bomut$fkj@news00.btx.dtag.de> <30E55516.40A4@spider.compart.fi> <30E5C4F1.A3D85B3@intex.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: st-ts00-02.iconn.net
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
- X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.6
-
- In article <30E5C4F1.A3D85B3@intex.net>, mwpeck@intex.net says...
- >
- >I'm wondering what people think of Symantec's C++. I looked at
- >Turbo C++ and Visual C++, but to my knowledge they do not compile
- >DOS programs. So I'm thinking full-blown Borland C++ or Symantec.
- >That way I can compile for any environment (except, of course, Linux-
- >but that's why there's GNU).
- >
- >Any thoughts on Symantec? Thanks.
- >
- >MWP
- >Mark Peck
- >mwpeck@intex.net
- Turbo C++ for DOS compiles for DOS, and in my opinion it is the ultimate
- environment anywhere to learn C++, it soooo easy, runs fast on the slowest of
- machines, no hassles.
- --
- The Crow - thecrow@iconn.net
- "It can't rain all the time"
- -Kryptology
-
-