|MicroSoft C 6.0F email@example.com (1990-07-07)|
|Re: MicroSoft C 6.0F firstname.lastname@example.org (1990-07-14)|
|Re: MicroSoft C 6.0F email@example.com (1990-07-16)|
|Re: MicroSoft C 6.0F firstname.lastname@example.org (1990-07-18)|
|Re: MicroSoft C 6.0F email@example.com (1990-07-19)|
|Re: MicroSoft C 6.0F bnrgate!bwdls58.bnr.ca!mlord@uunet.UU.NET (1990-07-24)|
|Date:||Thu, 19 Jul 90 18:22:39 GMT|
>From article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, by email@example.com (David Conrad):
> In article <1990Jul14.firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Andrew R Cook) writes:
> }MicroSoft C6.0 has many nice features that C5.1 or C4.0 do not have, that
> }make the upgrade worthwhile. First of all(and most important to me) it
> }includes a whole bunch more in the way of graphics support.
> Are you familiar with Borland's BGI (included with Turbo C2.0)? How do the
> two compare? They sound very similar (Microsoft probably added this feature
> because of its presence in Turbo C).
You're right, Microsoft probably did add it because of competition with
Borland. But Microsoft's graphics library is much more powerful and
easier to use than Borland's. MSC has more presentation-graphics
functions, and those that have TC equivalents are faster in executing
than TC's. Also, with MSC, you can write in any Windows font. That
means that if you have the Windows 3 SDK, you can create your own
stroked fonts to use with MSC.
The big difference, though, is that MSC does not use the equivalent of
BGI files. All of the graphics support (exept fonts) is linked into
the EXE. On the plus side, that means you don't have to distribute
BGI files with everything you write. On the down side, it means that
you can't modify MSC's functions to work with Super VGA or anything.
By the way, one MSC 6.0 bug that I didn't see anyone mention: I almost
always get an Internal Error when I try to compile a program with a
customized memory model.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.