#Comeau C++ Review
9 messages in this thread
>For those of us who missed it, can you tell us a bit about the 3.0 compiler?
BTW, in addition to my previou answer we were surpised to find out yesterday
that "AC's Tech Guide to the Commodore Amiga" new issue (vol 3. no 1) had
what I consider a glowing review. Apparently they did the review incognito
as we knew nothing about it. The reviewer discusses a number of issues
include the internal working of Comeau C++ 3.0 With Templates and his
opinion on us and the compiler. A brief quote is as follows:
"Installing Comeau C++ is a snap…. Free technical support available is
various forms… My call was returned within several hours. The person with
whom I spoke was polite and courteous, and I was satisfied with the
answers… I used Comeau C++ for six months … many small programs and
libraries.. [also] large, complex UNIX-based C++ programs that I transfered
to my Amiga. I have experienced no problems… as far as I can determine,
Comeau C++ is faithful to the spec… Problems can creep into software
during porting [but] Comeau C++ seems to be a complete port of AT&T's C++
Language System… I am entirely satisfied with Comeau C++."
This is very close to the numerous review we have received on usenet's
comp.sys.amiga.reviews (and in other places and magazines for our
non-Amiga ports.
[More]
[Continued]
His "subjective ratings … based on comparing Comeau C++ with the
professional programming tools and compilers" he uses is:
Technical quality and reliablity: excellent
Price: good
Support: excellent
Installation: excellent
Documentation: poor
Completeness: excellent
Integration with AmigaDOS: excellent
Integration with C Compilers: excellent
I should note that even in the good/poor categories he still comes around
though. For instance, the narrative is explicit in mentioning "The
documentation… is sparce… In all fairness, … adequate." Also
"Compared with prices for C++ development systems on UNIX … (… $2000),
even the price… is excellent!" So, I guess he really meant excellent
above even though he said good. 😉
The only think I didn't like about the review was that they did not include
our phone number. I never noticed but perhaps that is AC Tech policy. Anyway,
this message was a somewhat redo of details from others and such on usenet
about the article. The article contains many many more details, insights, etc,
even some discussion about C++ itself so I would strongly suggest getting a
copy. I hope this follow-up helps answer your question further.
Greg,
Can you send me some info?
Bill
>Can you send me some info?
Sure, but not electronically. It would have to be US postal, or via fax.
I can of course electronically answer any questions you may have. Similarly
you can call 718-945-0009 and speak with somebody (not necessarily me).
Again, I strongly suggest getting a copy of the article.
I should also point out that many here (and on BIX and Usenet) have
Comeau C++.
Greg:
Does it still come with a money back guarantee?
Regards, Tom
>Does it still come with a money back guarantee?
Yes. In fact in 1991 we bumped it from 30-day to 60-day.
Note though that this is not a mechanism for trial or evaluation or testing.
Everybody looses under that scenario. A return is only expected under a
total awesome problem that is totally non-work-aroundable in a reasonable
fashion. Although I agree there is nothing like hands on with it, we prefer
that not only do you ask any and every question you have about it before you
buy, but that you tell us what you are going to be using it for so that we can
respond and guide you accordingly. We would rather advise you that C++ was
inappropriate for your current consideration, or point you at a competitor
who more close matches what you want, then have a return. I hope that does
not sound too strict, but we try to be responsible vendors.
Greg,
"good" was probably from ocmparing to Borland or Zortech and the like.
As for the documentation evalutation, did he give specific dislikes other
thatn "sparce?" That is not bad in itself. The best C reference I ever
had was a little wire bound, carboard covered AT&T Bell Labs C
Programmer's Handbook. It's all of 84 pages of sparce printing and
includes index and table of contents. It's a great little book (ISBN
0-13-110073-4 if anyone is curious). I've tried to locate a similar
handbook from them for C++ but haven't had any luck. Maybe your "sparce"
docs would be a good substitute ;^}
wmc – via Autopilot!
>"good" was probably from ocmparing to Borland or Zortech and the like.
Could be. OTOH, we're less expensive than them as far as I know
(although I think there is still a $80 or so Turbo C++, though
they end up hitting $800 or so).
>As for the documentation evalutation, did he give specific dislikes other
>thatn "sparce?" That is not bad in itself.
No explicit dislikes as far as I can see. And he does conclude that
it is adequate. He was of course talking specifically about the
AmigaDOS specific User's Guide. There is another more general one. That is
sparce too but does have more details.
> The best C reference I ever
>had was a little wire bound, carboard covered AT&T Bell Labs C
>Programmer's Handbook. It's all of 84 pages of sparce printing and
>includes index and table of contents. It's a great little book (ISBN
>0-13-110073-4 if anyone is curious).
Yep. I've used that over the years too. I now use close to exclusively
that ANSI C standard to look up anything nowadays though.
>I've tried to locate a similar handbook from them for C++ but haven't had any
>luck. Maybe your "sparce" docs would be a good substitute ;^}
No, not from that perspective. Anyway, I think you will be happy to get a
copy of the following text (which includes 3.0 coverage) which is intended
to be in the style of Bolsky's original as you indicate (it is not spiral
bound though):
Lucas, Paul J, "The C++ Programmers Handbook", Prentice Hall, 1992,
ISBN 0-13-118233-1.
Greg,
Thanks for the line on the C++ handbook.
wmc – via Autopilot!