#Opinions on Topspeed C
13 messages in this thread
Anyone out there currently using Jensen & Partners Topspeed C environment?
I'm looking for some opinions on the products performance, ease of use,
features, etc… The reviews & benchmarks seem pretty impressive, but I
would prefer to hear rave reviews from someone who is actually using the
product. I would greatly appreciate any feedback….
Regards,
Dean
P.S. I hope this doesn't start yet another C compiler debate <grin>…
I'm using TS C, along with Watcom, MSC, Turbo, and Lattice in rotation. I
wnat to make sure my project stays portable. What did you want to know?
–John
Perfect! What's your overall impression of the Topspeed environment? How
would you compare it to the other environments your using? How does the VID
debugger compare to Codeview? How portable is the code between, say, MSC
and Topspeed? I know portability is somewhat relative, but do you find it
difficult to avoid using MSC extensions that might cause your code to blowup
in another environment (not necessarily Topspeed's)? If you're using the
"extended edition", have you used the time-slicing scheduler to produce
"multi-threaded" DOS apps? If so, is it worth the effort? Also, how bout'
the extended edition's facilities for creating DLL's for DOS?
How's that for a start…. I'm going to be upgrading from plain ol' QuickC
to "something" within the next few months. The question is: WHAT? I always
figured I'd just upgrade to MSC V?.?, but now I'm not so sure. I want to
invest in an environment that's positioned for the future. Rumor's abound
that just about everybody (MS & JPI included) will be introducing "C++"
style extensions to their environments sooner or later. One of the things
that impressed me about TS was their ANSI compatibility. I realize that
eventually everyone will be "ANSI compatible", but I respect JPI's forward
thinking approach. If you could only purchase a single environment (rather
than the multitude you have now <grin>), would it be TS?
Now, if this don't start some sort of debat… nothin' will. Forget about
who compiles fastest *today*. Lets talk about who's got the "right stuff"
for tomorrow…
_Regards::Dean;
Overall impressions on the environment? I don't use the environment with
any of the compilers, but use my own editor. I only breifly looked at the
TopSpeed environment. It has multiple (10 I think) editors, and is pretty
straightworward to use. I fired it up to have it set all my switches in
the project file for me, but then I used my own editor to stuff in all the
file names.
The command line use has some nice features: It has the compiler, linker,
and MAKE integrated. It flys! MAKE does not have to shell out to the
compiler each time. The dependacy checking is rather advanced, and checks
actual date stamps it puts in the OBJ so it will catch it if you get an
update from someone else that is dated before the last time you compiled,
for example. It has **type-safe linkage**.
Portability of code? No problem. I move between TSC and MSC with no
changes in my source. Also between Lattice, Turbo, and Watcom. Note that
with the use of Pragmas, TSC will interface with anything. You can specify
the calling convention, returning convention, and preserved registers of an
external function that you need to link to. Just use `cdecl' though to
link with MSC style ASM code.
<<find it difficult to use MSC extensions?>> like what? I think the stuff
found in MSC5 is de-facto standard now.
[More]
[Continued]
I have not played around with DLL's yet or threading. I will though.
I think that JPI is quite "foward thinking", and are responsive to new
ideas. You will not be disapointed with the current compiler, and they are
worth keeping an eye on for the future.
The debugger (VID) is a little flakey. I got version 1.00 though. Don't
buy version 1.00 of _anything_ 🙂 Version 1.01 is starting to ship now.
It is quite easy to use, and offers nice features. One big advantage is
that it is slim on memory. I have a program with 15,000 lines and 120K EXE
produced, and still had a 250K heap available when running in the debugger.
If I had to pick one compiler… I don't know. JPI and Watcom are both
candidates for the best generated code, but I have not pitted them
head-to-head yet. JPI is faster, and has the "integrated environment".
<<right stuff for tomorrow?>> I think JPI is worth watching alright.
–John
John,
Thanks for your extensive reply. I really appreciate the fact that your
opinions appear to be relatively objective and not steeped in personal bias.
(i.e. Every try to talk to a *insufferable* TC bigot, they're worse than
ex-smokers…) As for not using the integrated environment, well, the text
editor is probably one of my least concerns. If JPI is really smart,
they'll include an option that allows one to plug in their favorite editor
rather than using the "factory" model (ala QC V2). One of the other things
that impressed me was JPI's efforts at constructing an integrated
multi-language environment. I also use Modula-2 and mixed-language support,
while possible, has not exactly been straight forward. If I understand the
literature correctly, VID is supposed to be able to detect error across
languages and point you to the correct source file (i.e. a program
consisting of C & Modula-2 components) assuming it was generated by one of
their compilers. Now there's a minor leap in debugging technology for ya!
(Perhaps this really isn't new stuff, but its new to me…)
I also caught your message over on CLMFOR about the ANSI C standard being
finalized (HORAY!). This should make TS an early leader if their claims of
100% compatibilty with the latest draft are true. Now the race will be on
for all compiler mfg's to produce real "ANSI compliant" products. In any
event, I'm glad the standard has finally been established. At least now we
have something to compare products against (besides ol' K&R). Now we'll
just have to thrash around with all the "C++" varients, eh?
Regards,
Dean
re VID using multi-language: CodeView has done that for years. So has
Periscope, but it doen't mean as much.
Personal bias? Yes, I hate them all. 🙂
Watcom 7.0 was the first one I saw that claimed 100% compliance. Then came
Lattice. The hard part is the libraries– LOCALE stuff and wide characters
and all. Most of them are pretty in line for the language proper. Like I
said, I know how to make code that fits on all compilers.
C++ varients? I don't think so. X3j16 is under way, and everyone is
aiming at cfront compatability, and vendors can draw on expert advice on
interpreting the DRM when needed.
–John
John,
Thanks for all your input on Topspeed… I'm still undecided as to which
compiler I'll shell out the bucks for, but I'm getting closer. There's no
rush, however, as I don't write code for a living. I may just hold off for
a few months & see what new developments take shape. I have a sneekin'
suspicion that 1st & 2nd qtr 90' will witness numerous product releases.
Best Wishes,
Dean
since you can hold off, check out the upcoming May issue of CLM. It is the
annual C issue, and will contain an all-out review of 12 compilers for DOS.
–John
P.S. Go ahead and start a compiler debate. I'll sit back and take notes,
and occasionally play Devil's Advocate to keep things moving along.
–John
Dean,
I just used TopSpeed to build a small system. I nover once needed to go to
the user's manual to figure out how to use the environment's
editor/compiler. The performance seems to be on a par with TC. There are a
lot of features I haven't tried yet. It looks pretty good.
Al Stevens
Which of the TS versions were you using, "standard", "extended", or OS/2?
Did you try compiling your small project with TC or MSC to compare the
results? (i.e. was the executable smaller, faster, etc…) One reviewer
comment on TS C's code generated assembler code was: "Topspeed generated
code that is as good as a competed assembler programmer would produce".
Pretty high praise considering most folks I've talked to believe the term
"optimising compiler" to be an oxymoron (you know, like "postal
service"…<grin>).
Thanks for the reply… Regards,
Dean
Dean,
I made no comparisons such as you suggest.
Al Stevens