jge@unc.UUCP (John Eyles) (05/02/84)
On the C for PC debate: the DeSmet compiler refuses to compile functions that exceed a certain size, and it's not that big a size; apparently this problem is there to stay, therefore I would classify this compiler as a toy basically. It is cheap.
jge@unc.UUCP (John Eyles) (05/03/84)
There apparently has been some misunderstanding of my posting concerning the DeSmet C compiler. By stating that "it is cheap", I mean that it is very inexpensive, probably the best buy. I believe it is a good product, but not suitable for large applications. My impression is that other available PC C compilers are superior in this regard, but I must admit that I have not actually made a direct comparison. Perhaps I am making an unfair comparison with the VAX/UNIX environment.
bjroehl@wateng.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) (05/03/84)
<to the eater of lines. is this bug fixed yet????>
I would strongly disagree with the observation made about DeSmet C.
I have used it for a wide variety of different projects, and have
nothing but high praise. It's fast (*much* faster than CI-86), produces
nice tight code and comes with a set of utilities that you'd pay a good
price for anywhere else.
A full-screen editor (which is my editor of choice), a very quick assembler,
a handy dump utility, and bunches of other goodies for $100. I've used
CI-86 and Lattice, and will stick with DeSmet.
Their latest release (2.3, which I ordered yesterday) includes a full-screen
symbolic debugger as well as everything else. (This version is slightly more
expensive, but not much).
I have had no problem compiling large functions; some have run to three pages
or more, and compile clean. (A good C programmer doesn't *write* functions
much longer than that!).
In short, I am extremely pleased with the DeSmet package. I'll dig up their
address and include it in a later posting.
--Bernie Roehl
P.S.
Did I mention they give you updates for just $20? I'd like to see some of
the other C vendors beat that! Some of them charge more for their updates
than the C-Ware people charge for the DeSmet compiler!
--
-Bernie Roehl (University of Waterloo)dys@homxa.UUCP (D.SZE) (05/04/84)
. I've used the DeSmet C for a while and have had 2 problems. 1. The program compiles and links, then hangs when it runs. Cntl-Alt-Dlt does not work, I have to turn the PC off to fix. This may be my software mistake, but has occured with different programs all with large arrays. Incidentally, the programs have run fine on smaller arrays and on minis (VAX and MAXI). 2. The scanf function I have goes to the next line after execution, thus I have a tough time reading arrays in a simple loop when there are multiple numbers per line. Other than that, it seems fast and the screen editor is rather primitive but easy to use. David Sze Bell Communications Research
bruce@ssc-vax.UUCP (05/04/84)
I too am very postive about DeSmet C. I love it, and it works well. But-- (and there always is a but, isnt there?) I always cringe when I get the latest DeSmet Newsletter which lists all the bugs in my version which are fixed in the new version. On reading the descriptions of the bugs I usually wonder how I could have been so lucky as to have avoided them. I now have 3 such newsletters. The latest newsletter extolls V2.3 but mentions that the the transcendental routines (which are so slow as to be useless; ie, as slow or slower than interpreted BASIC) will be speeded up in yet another future release. So do I update now or wait??? ARRRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!! Since I have not used any of the competitors C compilers, I dont know if this situation is unique to DeSmet or better (or worse) with other vendors. But I am of the opinion that there is an element of "getting what you paid for" mixed in even though you do get a lot of bang for your buck. Bruce Stock Boeing Aerospace
timw@umcp-cs.UUCP (05/04/84)
DeSmet C is by no means a toy. I have been using DeSmet for about 8 months
and I gladly ordered the update as soon as I got notice of it.
I have yet to have any problems compiling large functions, because you're
not supposed to write any large functions !!!
The price is outstanding. Just because the price is low
is no reason to think it is inferior. I think it is excellent
product and it's about time people have come out with
a product that doesn't stretch your pocketbook to its
furthest limits.
--
Tim Wicinski
University of Maryland
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!timw
CSNet: timw@umcp-cs
ARPA: timw@marylandplb@omsvax.UUCP (Phil Barrett) (05/07/84)
I too have been using DeSmet C for a while now and have generally found it to be a reasonably decent product. There are a couple of problems which limit the usefulness of the DeSmet package: a) the equivalent of libc is not very equivalent. there seems to be no real distinction between stdio functions and 'non-stdio' functions. For example, fread and read are equivalent in that fread does no buffering. Not a terribly severe problem but its indicative of the apparent philosophy behind the library. b) Creating .com files. Anybody generated .com files with DeSmet's binder? If you have drop me a line. The problem here is that to do a device driver (er loadable variety) you must generate a .com file. (For those that care, its a program that has ss=ds=cs --- SMALL model, one segment; .com files can't have segment fixups; 0407 type for you PDP-11 Unixians) Programs generated with the DeSmet product have 'split I/D', ie ss=ds but cs is different (0411 type). Exec2bin (or whatever its called) bitches me out when I try to feed it a DeSmet program. I've been thinking of munging the assembler output and forcing everything into CS but thats gross :-). Oh well, so I have a couple of problems with the package. Would I do it again if I had it to do over? Absolutly yes. At a hundred nine bucks a shot, its second only to Turbo Pascal as the bargain of the century (in some ways its better cause you can actually write usefull code in c :-) ). BTW - I just got the latest C-Ware newsletter/catalog. It has a graphics libaray for the DeSmet system for $30 (I think). It claims basica graphics -- whatever that means. I ordered it for yucks, if its decent, I'll post a review. Also, DeSmet has a debugger called d88. I suspect that it will be similar to the Intel monitors which Mark DeSmet designed while at Intel. If thats the case then d88 may be the best debugger for the PC. I ordered it also and will post a review if its halfway decent. Phil Barrett Intel Corp Integrated Systems Operation ..!tektronix!ogcvax!omsvax!plb ..!hplabs!intelca!omsvax!plb