home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ncrgw2!psinntp!dg-rtp!teewinot!jahn
- From: jahn@teewinot.rtp.dg.com (Daniel Jahn)
- Subject: Re: Difference between Turbo C++ and Borland C++
- Message-ID: <1993Jan26.162321.9333@dg-rtp.dg.com>
- Sender: jahn@teewinot (Daniel Jahn)
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:23:21 GMT
- References: <1993Jan21.175238.23743@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
- Organization: Data General, User Interfaces
- Keywords: C++, IBM PC, Borland
- Lines: 38
-
- I called Borland with this exact question. The main difference
- between the Turbo and the Borland is the Turbo C++ can only build
- either DOS (if you get Turbo C++ for DOS) or Windows (if you get
- Turbo C++ for Windows.) The Borland C++ can build both Windows
- and DOS applications.
-
- Additionally, the Turbo C++ has a built-in assembler, the Borland
- C++ has asm.
-
- The guy also said the Borland has a Profiler.
-
- The Borland has the same documentation as the Turbo, with a few
- additional documents.
-
- He said the disk space required for Turbo C++ for windows is 22MB and for
- Borland C++ is 55MB.
-
- I ended up getting the Borland C++. It uses only 42MB on my disk.
-
- In article <1993Jan21.175238.23743@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, kkuehl@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Kevin Kuehl) writes:
- |>
- |> Could someone please explain to me the difference between Turbo C++ and
- |> Borland C++? I see there is about a $200 price difference and wonder
- |> what I get for the extra $200. Also, do you thing the extra $200 is worth
- |> is for non-production programming? I will be using is mostly just to
- |> write small programs to keep my skills sharp and try new things.
- |>
- |> Thanks a bunch,
- |> --
- |>
- |> Kevin Kuehl AT&T Bell Labs
- |> kevin.r.kuehl@att.com Indian Hill
- |> att!ihlpm!kkuehl Naperville, IL
-
- --
- ---
- Daniel R. Jahn jahn@dg-rtp.dg.com
- ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!jahn
-