From: shoguntim AT aol DOT com (ShogunTim)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: The numer 1 compiler, DJGPP or MSVC  Here's a good rating comparision
Date: 10 Sep 1997 11:00:02 GMT
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <19970910110001.HAA09461@ladder02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder02.news.aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
References: <34148F08 DOT 7A16 AT pacbell DOT net>
SnewsLanguage: English
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk


>This comment is of some concern to me.  I use Borland compilers, >and
amabout to upgrade to the new version (either Builder or 5.0 >(right?)). Is
there some significant reason Borland is bad?  Should >I go withsomething
else? (Please dont say DJGPP, I'm addicted >to the IDE).
>I'm not interested in getting drawn into a best compiler war, but if
>there is a good reason to avoid the new Borland compilers, I >would like
to know before I go spend several hundred dollars on >one.

Well since you mentioned DJGPP, I suppose you are intending on doing dos
programming.  As far as that goes, The most popular Borland DOS compilers
have been 16 bit compilers.  People who wanted 32 bit programs, generally
used either Watcom or DJGPP. Borland soon came out with a 32 bit dos
compiler which used an extender called powerpack (or something  like that)
which isn't very popular. So if you want to do dos programming, the only
two logical compilers to use are Watcom or DJGPP mainly because they are
the most supported.  Borland and Microsoft no longer care about DOS
programming, and  Borland compilers have been known to produce code which
is bit slower, but I doubt the speed difference is of any concern in most
cases.  As for IDE, I found that Rhide (though it screws up sometimes)  is
a pretty good IDE to work with once you get use to it.  So thats not an
excuse.