CompuServe Messages

<stepping on soapbox>… As in all things in our wonderfully capitalistic running-dog society, competition fosters improvement in most cases. Such is the case with this compiler fracas. As it has been said (and written), Lattice was the first, and thus, by default the best compiler available. Manx came out and, yes, blew away Lattice, running rings around it in performance (both in compilation, and perf of compiled code). Now, after a couple of flips and flops in the race, Lattice again has the lead with: a better compiler environment, from what I understand (only having used Lattice, I do not feel qualified to knock Manx); more ANSI compliance; faster, smaller compiled code. Undoubtedly, Manx' next release will contain some bells and whistles that Lattice ain't got. So what? *I* have chose to stick with Lattice. I agree with Ben's opinion that the presence of John Toebes is a benefit that has (thus far) no Manx equivalent. For those who prefer Manx, they will benefit too. As for the argument about ILAC, IMO it *IS* an evil that should be avoided at all costs IF portability is your desire. If, OTOH, you want only to use something for yourself (/your company) and portability is not a concern, but performance IS, then ILAC *could* be of benefit. Ben's argument about including it as a separate, callable module simply makes more sense on the whole, because you never REALLY know if you're ever going to port something to another compiler &/or machine. If you ANSI compliant code, and stuff all your assembler into a separate module, then porting, even to other MACHINES (why WOULD one? Shucks, Look at microemacs, it has adherents on ALL machines) is made easier. <stepping off soapbox> –Gabe