Klondike9 (klondike9@aol.com) wrote:
: I am a programing virgin!  I've read 1 book on C++ and I want to buy my
: first compiler for my PC (486DX2-66).  Which one ???  I am looking at
: Borland Turbo C++ and Visual C++  just because they are both under
: $100.00.  Would either one be OK ?  Please post answers to this news group
: or E-mail me at the address below.

For a beginner, Turbo C++ is real fine. This compiler got all you have to
have for a beginning, it's just good enough for semi-prof stuff.
It's the programmer who does "it", not the compiler, so a high-end
development system could be too large and complicated for a beginner.
So I can recommend the Turbo C++ 3.0 (avlb. for DOS or for WIN).


--
**************************************************************************
| Bruno Dickhoff              |        Internet: bd@mash.gun.de          |
| Tel.:V+49-211-629934(voice) |                                          |
| Maybachstr. 7               |    Fido: 2:2440/225.24 (fido.classic)    |
| 40470 Duesseldorf, Germany  |                                          |
**************************************************************************

Bruno Dickhoff (bd@mash.gun.de) wrote:
> Klondike9 (klondike9@aol.com) wrote:
> : I am a programing virgin!  I've read 1 book on C++ and I want to buy my
> : first compiler for my PC (486DX2-66).  Which one ???  I am looking at
> : Borland Turbo C++ and Visual C++  just because they are both under
> : $100.00.  Would either one be OK ?  Please post answers to this news group
> : or E-mail me at the address below.

> For a beginner, Turbo C++ is real fine. This compiler got all you have to
> have for a beginning, it's just good enough for semi-prof stuff.
> It's the programmer who does "it", not the compiler, so a high-end
> development system could be too large and complicated for a beginner.
> So I can recommend the Turbo C++ 3.0 (avlb. for DOS or for WIN).

I'd strongly recommend against Turbo C++ for Windows for a beginner.
Learning programming and C++ are difficult enough without having to deal
with Windows also.

For that reason, I'd also recommend against Visual C++ Standard Edition; it
only does Windows.

Both Turbo C++ for Windows and Visual C++ do support DOS-like applications
under Windows, but there are enough limitations in using ANSI functions
in both that I don't think they're suitable for self-study.

Visual C++ Professional Edition does support DOS programming and would
be suitable but, like Borland C++ (which would  also be suitable) it's
more expensive and bigger and could be too big.

--
Mike Rubenstein

In article <1994Aug3.221914.19006@nlm.nih.gov> rubenst%occs.nlm.nih.gov (Michael M. Rubenstein) writes:
>From: rubenst%occs.nlm.nih.gov (Michael M. Rubenstein)
>Subject: Re: Which C++ compiler should I buy?
>Date: Wed, 3 Aug 94 22:19:14 GMT

>Bruno Dickhoff (bd@mash.gun.de) wrote:
>> Klondike9 (klondike9@aol.com) wrote:
>> : I am a programing virgin!  I've read 1 book on C++ and I want to buy my
>> : first compiler for my PC (486DX2-66).  Which one ???  I am looking at
>> : Borland Turbo C++ and Visual C++  just because they are both under
>> : $100.00.  Would either one be OK ?  Please post answers to this news group
>> : or E-mail me at the address below.

>> For a beginner, Turbo C++ is real fine. This compiler got all you have to
>> have for a beginning, it's just good enough for semi-prof stuff.
>> It's the programmer who does "it", not the compiler, so a high-end
>> development system could be too large and complicated for a beginner.
>> So I can recommend the Turbo C++ 3.0 (avlb. for DOS or for WIN).

>I'd strongly recommend against Turbo C++ for Windows for a beginner.
>Learning programming and C++ are difficult enough without having to deal
>with Windows also.

My brother recently called up and asked "which C compiler" to buy.  After
looking into the alternatives, I bought him Turbo C++ for Windows.  I had
reservations about it, but I tested it and discovered a wonderful thing:
you can use these new Windows compilers to write regular old "C Primer Plus"
examples, with main() and printf() and all that jazz, and the startup code
automagically does a QuickWin-style initialization.  So, all your
stdin/stdout/stderr goes to a nice resizable window and all the standard fcns
work just like when I was learning on UNIX.  Visual C++ has this ability also,
simply by choosing a QuickWin project (or whatever MS calls it).

Plus, if he ever wants to do Windows programming, he can.  It even came with
ProtoGen, so he doesn't have to do all the code generation himself.  Pretty
nifty really, not to mention the Windows-hosted IDE.  All for $80.  I tell
you, if things had been this easy when I was learning C (or C++ for that
matter), I'd be a much better programmer, and I'd still have a lot more
tolerance for the industry.

Jim

PS  I've just now realized that this discussion really shouldn't be happening
in comp.std.c++, but I'm unsure how to get this reader to continue the thread
elsewhere.  Please accept my apologies for gobbling bandwidth and annoying the
standards discussion (which is why I read this group, normally!).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Jarrett, Software Engineer   | You're in a series of twisted little
Allen-Bradley                    | meetings, each one very much the same.
A Rockwell International Company |
James.Jarrett@ab.com             | cout << Disclaimer(STANDARD);

I am a programing virgin!  I've read 1 book on C++ and I want to buy my
first compiler for my PC (486DX2-66).  Which one ???  I am looking at
Borland Turbo C++ and Visual C++  just because they are both under
$100.00.  Would either one be OK ?  Please post answers to this news group
or E-mail me at the address below.


     Thanks for your help in advance,


     Dennis James

     Klondike9@aol.com