#lattice upgrades
8 messages in this thread
While in theory, 5.0 looks very good, it's got some real problems.
CodeProbe produces extremely large executables (much greater expansion than
Aztec's SDB).
The docs are improved, but the most important stuff isn't even in the manual(s)
— it's the in the Addendum.doc file on Disk #5.
It's got a lot of bugs in the compiler. Even the 5.01 patches (285k worth)
that is available from their bbs is buggy. After installing the patches just
try to initialize a global variable (ie, int i = 50). You'll put yourself in
an endless loop.
5.0 will be a great compiler when the bugs are gone and the speed of the
compiler and blink is improved (as compared to Aztec's cc and ln, it's about
twice as slow).
-sja
1) The executable contains all the information that is contained in Aztecs
dbg file as well as the object. Bear in mind that the whole executable is NOT
loaded (I dont believe).
2) There is a documentation update coming with the OFFICIAL patch that contains
most of the info from Addendum.doc.
3) The patches on LBBS are PRELIMINARY, and John Toebes has posted updated
compiler patches on bix. The official one should be out this month (January).
Talk with John Toebes about the speed issues. One thing in Lattices favor is
the fact that they use the standard amiga object file format, and we finally be
getting other languages to do the same.
Remember, I do NOT work for or represent Lattice. I happen to have been
involved in the beta testing of 5.0 a little, as well as giving them my share
of bug reports. They are, however responding to them.
Larry Rosenman
via Whap! 1.4R
Larry,
At this point in time, I feel like I wasted my money on 5.0.
I had 3.01 and 3.03 and it was so bad it drove me to Aztec. Even tho I've
been very happy with Aztec, Lattice 5.0 sounded very nice, so I bought it ($200
from my local dealer). Well, I didn't get a usable compiler. Maybe 5.01 or
5.5 will be usable.
-sja
you could have saved $100 by ordering it from Lattice with the serial number or
disks for 3.0x
Larry
I know, but wanted it in '88 for tax reasons. So, from that viewpoint, I'm not
sorry I bought it, too bad it doesn't (yet) work properly.
I'd be real interested in knowing just what problems you've been having
with Lattice v. 5.0. I used 3.03 for a while and found it useless, but 4.0 has
done what I've needed it to (though my demands aren't to severe). I'm upgrading
to 5.0 RSN (check arrived in todays mail!), and I'd be interested to hear what
problems still exist.
I haven't really considered purchasing Aztec C. If I come up with the
money for another compiler, it will be in another language. Modula2, most
likely, though if I get an attack of the crazies, it may be Forth or APL.
I'm comparing it Aztec 3.6. It's theorethically much more powerful. But, it's
slower in compile and link and buggy. Maybe the 5.01 update will help.
I haven't seen 5.0 yet, but I do understand that there are a few bugs, and
that the interim patches fix them but introduce another. Lattice has always
been slower to compile and link than Manx. In the old versions of Lattice
(3.03, etc.), I didn't consider this a serious problem, as the compiler had so
many other problems that it didn't seem too important. Under 4.0 and I expect
5.0, most of the basic problems were fixed, and the speed thing assumes much
greater importance. We can hope that Lattice will address this issue in future
releases.
I understand that 5.0 provides greater support for the ANSI standard. Do
you know if it supports bit-fields? That was the feature in 4.0 that I missed
most.