Microsoft/Borland C/C++

[Joan Tine]

In article <1737 at gufalet.let.rug.nl> eoo at let.rug.nl (Eize Oosting) writes:
>In article <1991Jun05.183949.2909 at lut.ac.uk> S.Culverhouse at lut.ac.uk (Bizee Bee - Simon C.) writes:
>Perhaps your last statement is true, but the rest: you are kidding right?
>You probably have your QuickC taking only one pass, so that you don't have
>any optimisation. Be aware that TC does this in only one pass. And even then
>you might compile a little faster, but have you compared Linking time?
>Now THERE is a difference, and when I say difference, I really mean DIFFERENCE.
>The Microsoft Linker is SLOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW.
>About the memory eating stuff: Don't let your files grow too big, but separate
>it, and make a project (or makefile). That will reduce compile time too.
>It's completely unnecessaru and stupid to recompile way along finished code
>every time again.
>
>> In general I still prefer good old Microsoft C, and am relutant to change.  I
>> am however open to suggestions and views on the two compilers, and would
>> apreciate any mail from other MS / Turbo C users.
>>
>I can understand that you want to stick to what you are used to, everybody does.
>Besides, both compilers are good compilers. The difference is not that big, 
>however, why weren't you impressed by the new windows on TC++. The new IDE is
>a big improvement (when you have a mouse).
>
Additionally, if you keep executable statements out of your header files,
you can use the Borland option to build and use a *.SYM (not like uC) file
which links precompiled header files instead of re-compiling them.
Also, the BC++ package has the Turbo Profiler package which is really 
nice for finding that "10%" of code we hear so much about and making it
faster.
Joan