#TDI Modula-2
4 messages in this thread
Yeah, I noticed the different compiler sizes also, but haven't noticed any
difference in behavior.
I also noticed that TDI continues their tradition of changing the .def
modules of their library to invalidate working source code. E.g., CreateExtIO
now returns an IORequestPtr, where in 2.20a it returned an IOExtSerPtr. Does
anyone know why TDI does this?
That's a rhetorical question, since I've given up on TDI. I guess as soon
as Benchmark gets straightened out I'll give it a try. From everything I've
heard, the only advantage that TDI has is the space-optimizing option in the
linker, which doesn't mean much if you can never get useful code to the
linker.
Have you considered M2Amiga, from A+L Meier-Vogt, distributed by Interface
Technologies? I'm a 'C' fanatic, but I've been tempted to try this package
just from the features:
It's so well integrated into the Amiga user interface it runs from icons.
It has excellent error handling… bot at compile-time and run-time.
It does Kernel (a misnomer… the ROM Kernel has nothing to do with a
monolithic kernel like UNIX' or a real kernel like Tunis') calls directly…
not via the runtime library.
I sent for their demo disks, and the thing that I noticed (about Interface
Technology's M2Amiga) was that their demo programs don't free up memory
properly. Mike
I never even heard of it (unless it's the one that was advertised in
AmigaWorld, in which case that's all I've heard about it). If it turns out to
be real, and people give me good reports about it, I'd be interested. But
even TDI sounded good in the ads, so I'm not going by a description of
features.