PF>With this in mind,  I didn't think Borland deserved an upgrade fee,  so I
  >didn't get 1.5.  I kinda feel that, for the us$250 I spent
  >on v1.0,Borland owes me (without further remuneration) a
  >working compiler  --and they still haven't delivered it.

Hear, hear (which here, hear, etc. should this be?).  Although I only
spent 150us bucks, I still feel that I got jipped, but I'm awaiting my
CD with v1.5 on it since the check left last Friday...  Patience is a
virtue I wish the good Lord would give me a little more of!! 

PF> SS> from Borland (I've used their DOS compilers for years), but the pricing
  > SS> (at least, from Indelible Blue) is $199 for BC++ 1.5 and $425 for CSet+
  > SS> That difference in price is significant... does IBM offer competitive
  > SS> upgrades, perchance?

To SS: Uh, are you upgrading? Call Borland and find out if you can get a
special upgrade price to v1.5 from v1.0 (if you own it, or from their
DOS compilers if you don't).

PF>Since I made my statement about the prices,  I too went to look at the stree
  >values (recently posted here).  I was wrong to say they
  >were close in price.  I do feal, however, that $100 spent
  >on Cset++ FirstStep would be better than $200 spent on Bc++
  >1.5.

Money has meant little to me, until now!  (18 and heading out on my
own!)

PF> SS> Is CSet++ 100% ANSI C compatible?  I'm careful to use ANSI C functions 
PF>Yes,  even more so than Borland in my experience.  I too am
  >mainly a C programmer.
Not me, when the good C++ people gave me the chance to learn the true
meaning of OBJECTS, I left... And the train hasn't stopped yet.  But I
am still not fully objected yet... I don't understand (haven't taken the
time yet) the inheritance stuff, or most of the mumbo jumbo.  I just use
them to keep my data wrapped up with code that means something.

PF> SS> As long as IBM has the ANSI eqivalents (fopen(), findfirst()), I'll be
  > SS> fine (I hope).

PF>findfirst() is not an ANSI function -- the fact that you didn't realize this
  >is another reason why I didn't like Borland's compiler;
  >They have too many runtime functions that are too easily
  >mistaken for "standard" functions.  Many of the other
  >compilers supply equivalent functions, but they prepend
  >them with an underscore.  _read(),
  >_dos_findfirst(),_splitpath(), for example.

Wait... ALL the reference material on the functions CLEARLY marks what
is, and is not, ANSI.

PF>IBM's compiler does not supply an equivalent of the Borland
  >findfirst() or MSC _dos_findfirst(),  and many other such
  >low-level functions.

PF>However, it is very easy to directly call the operating system's
  >DosFindFirst() function (and this is probably why they
  >decided they needn't bother coding it in the C runtime).
  >When you do this,  you're writing compiler independent code
  >(but OS specific :-().

You mean COMPILER specific, but -=NOT=- Operating System Specific.
Borland's findfirst/findnext work the same in OS2 as it does in DOS and
WIN.  Which, if you stick with one company, is a very NICE feature when
writing cross-platform apps.  (Made even easier with Guidelines)

Michael Douglass
___
 .Mike's Mail Internet:   MICHAEL.DOUGLASS{at}LCHANCE.SAT.TX.US

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb