C compilers

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <1991May7.205310.4708 at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gordon at osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Gordon) writes:
>
>	Quick C costs so little because it is only a compiler.

QuickC costs so little because MicroSloshed considers it a toy
compiler, for people who don't need even a close-to-properly-done
compiler.  Although the library is much better than the compiler
itself.  Still, there's not much use for QuickC.  I use it
occasionally to produce toy programs on my DOS machine.  Real programs
I do on one of the machines here where I have many megabytes of
virtual memory (and about 450 MIPS) and GCC running on all of the
machines.  Where would this world be without GCC? (*)

>  Turbo C++
>by itself is about $80 or $90, but add $80 or so and get the Professional
>package, which includes a Debugger, Assembler and Profiler.  I would 
>recommend Turbo C++ Professional.

I think that intro CS students here are required to buy this now.

-GAWollman

(*)  Answer: without GCC, this world would have several competing
commercial C compilers of similar quality.  You decide which state of
affairs is better.

Garrett A. Wollman - wollman at emily.uvm.edu

Disclaimer:  I'm not even sure this represents *my* opinion, never
mind UVM's, EMBA's, EMBA-CF's, or indeed anyone else's.