home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16 / NN_1992_16.iso / spool / misc / forsale / computer / 27842 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-07-27  |  909 b 
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!matt.ksu.ksu.edu!news
  2. From: kentiler@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Kent Iler)
  3. Newsgroups: misc.forsale.computers
  4. Subject: Re: BorlandC 3.1 vs. Turbo C++ 3.0
  5. Date: 27 Jul 1992 12:16:02 -0500
  6. Organization: Kansas State University
  7. Lines: 9
  8. Message-ID: <151b0iINNg84@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
  9. References: <1992Jul27.145812.2798@msdhsv.ingr.com>
  10. NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
  11.  
  12. john@fl_gator.b17a.ingr.com (John Eason) writes:
  13.  
  14. >Can someone please compare the two products (i.e. what can BC 3.1 do that 
  15. >Turbo C++ 3.0 can't, etc.)
  16.  
  17. I'm teaching myself C++, so I can't say to much about which each can or can't do.
  18. I do know, however, that BC++ 3.1 takes up somewhere around 48 meg of disk space 
  19. if you install everything.  From what I've used of it, it seems to be way cool!
  20.                                                      --Kent
  21.