#C Compilers: which one?
4 messages in this thread
The heck we would. <grin>
I like the fact that Manx is there – for the competativve reason you mentioned.
Your points are well stated, and I accept them, sort of. I will say that I am
very glad I don't have to switch compilers, simply because the environments are
quite different. Should the Manx compiler become the superior compiler (which
would surprise me – it's never been that yet, despite the reviewers hype to the
contrary) It would have to offer something spectacular to make me uproot all
the megabytes of source I have.
Pascal? Ech! Perhaps Modula <turning green>
–Ben-
Ben,
When Lattice first came out it was a dog. Manx was far superior to Lattice.
To claim that Lattice has always been number one is just plain naive. If you
doubt me, whip out a copy of the original Lattice compiler and compile the
following:
main() {
printf( "Hello out there!\n" ) ;
}
After about 3 minutes, you should get an object module. Manx's first release
was an order of magnitude faster (and better). It's just recently that Lattice
has caught and surpassed Manx.
Dave @OTG
That entirely depended on how and which way you linked it, which print modules
you brought in, and so on. I used the original (v1.0) Lattice compiler to
create "PCLO", and was quite satisfied. A printf is no indication of the
compiler – a complex app is, however. At the time those benchies were making
the rounds, the entire prototype of PCLO was smaller than that default
generation. What you were getting was a big chunk of library, which is no
indication of the compiler's efficiency at all.
In the beginning, btw, there was no Manx compiler – which sorta made Lattice a
better choice, neh? <grin>
Also, even given the 16 bit defaults that manx had (while lattice defaulted to
the bigger, more powerful (and slower) model, and the fact that you couldn't
(at the time you refer to) link the manx output with regular Amiga object
modules, the Manx compiler was all but useless for wide-scope development. You
had to use their environment, which was nothing but an incompatable port at the
time. Again, that made Lattice better.
You have to be very careful when you quote a specific benchie to say compiler a
is better than compiler b. All that cr*p from the Manx camp about the problems
with Lattice seemed to have no effect on the programs I produced with the
compiler. I have run into very few bugs, and I've been using the compiler(s)
from Lattice since the day the machine was released. We (SoftCircuits) showed
the very first CAD program ever released on the Amiga at COMDEX within 7 months
of the machines release, and we had it selling at the time. AEGIS was there,
but had many bugs and couldn't sell anything. Since then, many Lattice-compiled
products have crossed my threshold on the way out, and seldom have I had cause
to complain.
As a result, I view a great deal of the bug-crying that Lattice endured as Manx
and Manx-user inspired BS. I have my experience to draw on – I've been
extremely sucessful in using the compiler in many ways.
–Ben–
Ben,
The fact of the matter is this. I have yet, in all my work, run into exactly
one bug with Manx. With Lattice I've found half a dozen. If I *wanted* to
find more bugs in Lattice, I could. Just pick any feature that was recently
introduced and start running stuff at it.
However, Lattice is stable in the core. Stick to the standard stuff and you
seem to be ok. For this reason I feel comfortable recommending Lattice over
Manx. Nevertheless, I'm anoyed by all the bugs.
I cannot for the life of me believe that you honestly think the original
release of Lattice was better than the original release of Manx. With Lattice
you could watch the paint dry, the grass grow, and the Manx setup compile and
link 2 maybe even 3 or 4 times while its counterpart staggered on.
Dave @OTG