home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watserv1!wes.on.ca!tomh
- From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
- Subject: Re: Microsoft C/C++ 7.0 versus Borland C++ 3.1
- Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:56:15 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Aug31.105615.1640@wes.on.ca>
- References: <1992Aug29.024739.9311@runx.oz.au> <715242303snx@lancea.actrix.gen.nz>
- Lines: 25
-
- > eau@runx.oz.au writes:
- >> We're trying to decide between Microsoft and Borland compilers
- >> as a standard compiler for building our products. We will use
- >> both compilers during development - the question is which one
- >> to use to generate the final .EXE. [etc]
-
- lance@lancea.actrix.gen.nz (Lance Andrewes) writes:
- > There's a comprehensive review of C/C++ compilers in PC Magazine,
- > July 92, volume 11 number 13.
-
- There's also one in Infoworld, August 17.
-
- HOWEVER, I will say again (and I bitched about this before) that neither
- article was, in my opinion, a *good* comparison for the purposes of pro-
- fessional developers. Concentrating on IDEs and resource tools stinks if
- you gloss over code optimization (extent and flexibility), class libraries
- and documentation.
-
- I wish someone like Dr. Dobbs Journal or DOS/Windows Programmer's Journal
- would do a good, *technical* review of the C/C++ compilers. Alas, it doesn't
- really seem like that's in the cards...
-
- [ \tom haapanen "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
- [ tomh@wes.on.ca "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
- [ waterloo engineering software "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
-