Newsgroups:	comp.lang.c++,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,rec.games.programmer
Subject:	Re: The numer 1 compiler, DJGPP or MSVC Here's a good rating comparision
From:	you AT somehost DOT somedomain (Herman Schoenfeld)
Organization:	Your Organization
References:	<3412BD25 DOT 1F30 AT mho DOT net> <3412DDA8 DOT C428AF45 AT a DOT crl DOT com> <341316EA DOT E14 AT mho DOT net> <34158665 DOT 8731090 AT news DOT concentric DOT net> <34148F08 DOT 7A16 AT pacbell DOT net> <5v5fm1$iku$1 AT vixen DOT cso DOT uiuc DOT edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0
NNTP-Posting-Host:	139.134.43.20
Message-ID:	<3417b361.0@139.134.5.33>
Date:	11 Sep 97 09:01:21 GMT
Lines:	35
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <5v5fm1$iku$1 AT vixen DOT cso DOT uiuc DOT edu>, *bowlin*@*uiuc.edu* says...
>
>In article <34148F08 DOT 7A16 AT pacbell DOT net>, bndwgn AT pacbell DOT net says...
>>
>>
>>Avery Lee wrote:
>>Only the
>>> crappiest of 32-bit compilers (hmmm... Borland? :) ) would be beaten by a
>>> 16-bit compiler in terms of the speed of a serious program.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- Avery Lee (Psilon AT concentric DOT net)
>>
>>This comment is of some concern to me.  I use Borland compilers, and am
>>about to upgrade to the new version (either Builder or 5.0 (right?)). 
>>Is there some significant reason Borland is bad?  Should I go with
>>something 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.
>
>1.)BC++ 5.02,Symantec C++ and Watcom C++ produce faster and smaller 
>executables than MSVC++ 5.0.
>
>2.)BC++ 5.02 supports OWL and MFC 4.2.
>
>3.)BC++ 5.02 is compatible with C++ builder
>4.) the help system on MSVC++ 5.0 is SLOW even on a dual 300 MHz Pentium II
>    with 128MB Ram.
>>Thanks.
>>


MSVC++ is not a tool for game programming. DJGPP/Watcom certainatly are.

- Raw text -