smith@Nrl-Aic.ARPA (04/09/84)
From: Russ Smith <smith@Nrl-Aic.ARPA> In partial reply to Jack Bicer's comment that "all other C's are toys" or some such... I use Software Toolworks C/80 2.0 (3.0 now available). It is at least comparable to BDS/C and, at one third the cost, a better (here we go!) deal. The BDS/C library stuff available at Simtel20 is easily modified for the differences in the two C's. Benchmark programs published in back issues of magazines such as BYTE (and perhaps Dr. Dobb's) have shown that C/80 is faster in execution than BDS/C. Compilation time is slower though. If one wants to repeatedly edit-compile-run-debug-edit-... then BDS/C is "better". If one wants something that runs faster after all the debugging is done then C/80 is "better" (of the two, other compilers ignored...). C/80 2.0 lacks a number of things I'd like but it ain't no toy. I've written MANY powerful programs with it without having to jump through hoops to get the functionality that the C language provides. No real flame intended, just a comment on what I consider to be a good useful inexpensive C compiler... Russ <Smith@nrl-aic>
Bicer.ES@Xerox.ARPA (04/10/84)
In order to avoid a fiery discussion, I said: "In my opinion, most of the other C compilers either serve a very specific purpose, or are toy compilers (Tiny C, etc.)." I agree with you about C/80, it not a toy compiler. It is what I consider to be very specific purpose -Low cost C compiler.- The same argument also applies to Small C (which also comes with the source of the compiler. If you are trying to upgrade from an assembler for a minimal cost, I agree with you 100%. In my opinion, at least professional programmers, require a little more than C/80. Jack Bicer
smith@Nrl-Aic.ARPA (04/10/84)
From: Russ Smith <smith@Nrl-Aic.ARPA> In order to continue a (not so) fiery discussion... First, I didn't mean to imply anything about the "reviewer" of the C compilers mentioned in the previous note. Once again my fingers moved faster than the diplomacy in my head... However... The C/80 compiler is written in C/80 (like BDS is written in BDS C and SMALL C is written in...). So are a text formatter similar to U**X nroff, a LISP interpreter, and a number of other things available from Software Toolworks. These are marketed programs so I'd have to assume they were written by "professional" programmers. When one compares the intrinsic functionality of C/80 and BDS C one finds that they are remarkably similar, especially if one considers that the libraries of stuff provided by BDS can be obtained from simtel20 (among other places). Once more I'd like to mention that C/80 performed "better" in execution benchmarks by a number of independent testers (if this means anything). The C/80 2.0 compiler is a C compiler well suited for "professional" purposes. I understand that Version 3.0 has more of the standard features that one expects from a "professional"s tool. At the price being asked, THIS reviewer considers it to be not only inexpensive, but one of the better C compilers available on the market, and, widespread use of BDS not withstanding, "better" in many important ways than said compiler. Typed from the keyboard of a multi-year "professional" computer scientist, Russ <Smith@nrl-aic> P.S. Sorry about that folks, but the 'at least "professional" programmers' aside in JB's previous note got my scruff up...
kevinw%isl@sri-unix.UUCP (04/10/84)
bds-c is NOT written in c. it is written in assembler. leor zolman said soewhere that if it were written in bds-c it would have been 2*size and (1/2)*speed (or some such figures...) -- K
hcarter@Brl-Mis.ARPA (04/13/84)
From: Harold Carter (AFIT) <hcarter@Brl-Mis.ARPA> Russ... I concur with you on the capabilities of C-80. I use it quite a bit and find it very useful. The only annoying thing is that it lacks some very useful functions such as ungetc which is in BDS/C. But I still like C-80... Hal Carter
mwm@ea.UUCP (04/17/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-1212100:ea:7800004:000:1281 ea!mwm Apr 17 11:40:00 1984 I don't know about you, but the version of C/80 I got (I think it was 2.0) was a dog. Printf (among other things) was broken, and the code was unreadable (nuts - the code was something I wouldn't want to look at anywhere near a meal). This didn't bother me - after all, nothing hits the market with all the bugs worked out. What DID bother me was the response I got back from the Software Toolworks when I called them about it. Something along the lines of "I may look at it if I find the time. Try buying the new versions when they come out. And don't call again." That bothered me no end. It still does. If I can't get support for a product, it's not suitable for professional use, no matter how good it is otherwise. To try and shed some light (along with the heat from above), I've heard some very good things about qc 3. Yet another Small-C derivative, it comes with full source, and a well-written manual explaining that source. Last time I looked, it had everything but bit fields and structure initialization. Supposedly, the struct initializers were going to go in soon, but I never got back to them about it. I haven't purchased a copy, but have spoken to the The Code Works people. It's only $100, and I would consider it if you think C/80 might be useful. <mike