home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!bloom-beacon!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!yev_g
- From: yev_g@athena.mit.edu (Yevgeny Gurevich)
- Subject: Re: BorlandC 3.1 vs. Turbo C++ 3.0
- Message-ID: <1992Jul28.124728.17082@athena.mit.edu>
- Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: pelli.mit.edu
- Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- References: <1992Jul27.183701.4270@msdhsv.ingr.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:47:28 GMT
- Lines: 21
-
- In article <1992Jul27.183701.4270@msdhsv.ingr.com> john@fl_gator.b17a.ingr.com (John Eason) writes:
- >Can someone please compare the two products (i.e. what can BC 3.1 do that
- >Turbo C++ 3.0 can't, etc.)
- >
-
- Borland C++ is an optimizing C/C++ compiler with development
- environments for both Windows and DOS. Turbo C++ comes in 2 flavors:
- Turbo C++/DOS and Turbo C++/Windows. To do development for both
- environments, you would have to get both packages. In addition to
- optimization, Borland C++ also includes an Assembler, and a standalone
- Debugger which are not included in the Turbo products.
-
- Borland C++ includes object-oriented class libraries with sourcecode
- and examples. I am not sure whether the Turbo Products include these.
- In general, Borland C++ is considered a "professional" product, while
- the Turbo products are good educational tools. This is not to say
- that Turbo C++ is a tinker toy. Generally, both products are good,
- its just a matter of deciding whether you are willing to spend so much
- money on a compiler which gives you features you will seldom use.
- --
- yev_g@athena.mit.edu 500 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA. [ Yevgeny Gurevich ]
-