ran@ho95b.UUCP (RANeinast) (02/04/85)
>4. Has anyone out there got 'Deep Blue C' or whatever; I'd like to use 'C' > on my Atari, and I'm not impressed by C/65. Appraisals, please. I've got it. Not too bad (though my version has a bug in setting graphics modes). However, I find I don't use it much. Most things for which I want quick development, I just do in BASIC. Two reasons: 1. Compile time. I write something, start compiling, and take a nap. Later (much later) I then have to link it all. Take another nap. Oops. I really want the output to look like this. Take two more naps. What if I change that? Take two more naps. 2. Run speed. When I ran a program, it didn't seem all that fast, so I tried running 10 look at atari built in clock 20 FOR I=1 TO 1000 30 FOR j=1 TO 1000 40 NEXT J 50 NEXT I 60 look at atari clock again 70 print difference 80 END and a C equivalent. Deep Blue C was faster by a factor of 3. Somehow, I thought a compiled vs interpreter should do better than that. Anyways, C usually isn't worth the trouble. If I'm going to the trouble, I'd just as soon do it in assembly, and make it *fast*. -- ". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch." Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95c!ran) AT&T-Bell Labs
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (02/07/85)
[........]
What I've heard about Deep Blue C is that it compiles to an interpretive
code ( a P code if you will), and thus it is slow. Unfortunately, I've
also heard it is a more standard version than the other alternative(s).
Personally, I use Forth, as its fast and interactive. I rarely have
to recompile the whole thing when I make mods (no time for a nap),
as Forth is an incremental compiler (you can interactively compile
small bits at a time).
Keith Doyle
{ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
"You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"