From: "T.W. Seddon" <T DOT W DOT Seddon AT ncl DOT ac DOT uk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: need advice on djgpp vs. Turbo C
Date: 17 Oct 1996 16:22:30 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <545mg6$pcn@whitbeck.ncl.ac.uk>
References: <542of0$60e AT csugrad DOT cs DOT vt DOT edu> <545edk$94v AT picayune DOT uark DOT edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aidan.ncl.ac.uk
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Christopher White (cswhite AT comp DOT uark DOT edu) wrote:
> One thing to consider is that Borland has practically dropped all support
> for it's DOS-based compilers.  Just visit their homepage - you'll see
> nothing about Turbo C++ 3.0.  And I highly doubt there will be another
> version (DOS-based) released.

I'd advise Turbo C if you're learning C/C++. I've got Turbo C++ 3.0 myself
and it's excellent for a beginner, especially the on-line help, colouring
of different program elements (helps a lot if you're not used to /* */!),
the quick compilation time and the handy debugger. After programming in 
BASIC for several years, I installed Turbo C++ and was writing a program 
within minutes, thanks to the online help. The debugger is great, and the 
huge pointer facility means you can ignore the 64K segment limit (640K of 
(effectively) flat-mode memory -- pretty handy).

Well, after that eulogy I will say that the code it produces isn't 
particularly quick and the IDE is no good for debugging Mode-X or 
graphics programs, but if you're learning C then the whole thing is a 
godsend. It took me about two weeks to get used to the lack of online 
help and syntax highlighting under djgpp. (And no, my family doesn't work 
for Borland :-)

--Tom Seddon
T DOT W DOT Seddon AT ncl DOT ac DOT uk