chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) (11/20/84)
I was playing with a Mac today, and I used for a short while the 'Hippo-C'
package. I didn't do much in-depth, but it looked reasonable. Has anyone
else used it enough to make a (good or bad) recomendation? What other C
compilers are there that I should be looking at?
chuq
--
From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA
This plane is equipped with 4 emergency exits, at the front and back of
the plane and two above the wings. Please note that the plane will be
travelling at an average altitude of 31,000 feet, so any use of these
exits in an emergency situation will most likely be futile.sjl@amdahl.UUCP (Steve Langdon) (11/22/84)
> I was playing with a Mac today, and I used for a short while the 'Hippo-C' > package. I didn't do much in-depth, but it looked reasonable. Has anyone > else used it enough to make a (good or bad) recomendation? What other C > compilers are there that I should be looking at? > > chuq > -- > From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach > {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA > I recommend that anyone considering a C compiler for the Mac should try Mac C from Consulair Corp. Mac C was used to write most of Apple's assembler development system and it is a nice package. I have been using Mac C for over a month with very good results. Support from Consulair has been excellent. Their address is: 140 Campo Drive, Portola Valley, CA 94025 (415)851-3849 I have no connection with Consulair other than as a satisfied customer. -- Stephen J. Langdon ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!sjl [ The article above is not an official statement from any organization in the known universe. ]
crs@lanl.ARPA (11/26/84)
> > I was playing with a Mac today, and I used for a short while the 'Hippo-C' > > package. I didn't do much in-depth, but it looked reasonable. Has anyone > > else used it enough to make a (good or bad) recomendation? What other C > > compilers are there that I should be looking at? > > > > chuq > > -- > > From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach > > {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA > > > I recommend that anyone considering a C compiler for the Mac should try > Mac C from Consulair Corp. Mac C was used to write most of Apple's > assembler development system and it is a nice package. > I have been using Mac C for over a month with very good results. > Support from Consulair has been excellent. Their address is: > 140 Campo Drive, Portola Valley, CA 94025 (415)851-3849 > I have no connection with Consulair other than as a satisfied customer. > -- > Stephen J. Langdon ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!sjl > > [ The article above is not an official statement from any organization > in the known universe. ] I saw today in Electronic Engineering Times (12 Nov 84, p 101) an article titled _New_Development_Software_May_Spur_Mac_Packages. Included with the article was a table listing 22 companies supplying languages for the Mac. Those with entries in the C column are: Company Phone Consulair Corp. 415-851-3849 Hippopotamus 408-730-2601 Manx Software 201-780-4004 Mark Williams 312-472-6659 First Qtr 85 Megamax, Inc. 214-987-4931 Softworks, Ltd. 312-327-7666 I am not familiar with any of these. Charlie Sorsby ...!lanl-a!crs crs@lanl
bunnell@smu.UUCP (11/29/84)
>>I'm thinking of purchasing a Fat Mac w/2 drives to use as a software >>development system, and I'd like to get some feedback on the feasibility >>of such use. In particular: >> >>1. Is the Mac Assembler/Debugger a viable software development tool >> for machine language programming? Has Apple produced a reasonably >> bug-free version, able to handle large source files, with linking >> capability, and so forth? >> >>2. Are there any worthwhile implementations of C available for the Mac? >> (E.g. how do they shape up as regards portability, size limitations >> on source code, Kernighan&Ritchie adherence, etc.) >> I've heard of a Unix C, from Holt/Stanford, which requires a Vax >> to utilize; has anyone had any experience with it? Are any C >> compilers compatible with the Mac Assembler? >> At Comdex I saw all the C compilers for the Mac and talked to a reviewer doing a review. These are the benchmarks that he had for the sieve program that was in BYTE last year. execution speed file size compilation/link etc. Megamax 6.2 (4.17 reg vars) 5k 105 Softworks 7.0 25k 300+ Consulair 10.0 12k 125 Hippo 60+ ? N/A He had not recieved the Manx compiler yet, but I talked to them and they do not have the capability yet to create a Macintosh type executable file (you must use their shell). The Megamax and the Softworks are the other two K&R compatible versions. The Consulair does not yet have floating point. The Megamax C compiler has in-line assembler and the compiler produces object code directly. Thus, there is no need for the 68000 developement system. The people at Megamax said that Apples object file format is still under discussion and they will convert to it when it is decided upon. The Megamax C compiler allows dynamic overlays and so I doubt that there is any problem with compiling very big programs. Also it is the only compiler out yet that has a librarian and the ability of the linker to link in just the routines that are called (this explains the small code size). I don't know their address but Megamax's phone number is (214) 987-4931 /* End of text from smu:net.micro.apple */ /* End of text from smu:net.micro.apple *
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (12/01/84)
> > He had not recieved the Manx compiler yet, but I talked to them and > they do not have the capability yet to create a Macintosh type executable > file (you must use their shell). > Also it (Megamax) is the only > compiler out yet that has a librarian and the ability of the linker > to link in just the routines that are called (this explains the small > code size). Both these statements are out-of-date. Manx's Aztec C can create an application (Versaterm was written with Manx C) and has a librarian and library searching linker. I have run them both, but have not run benchmarks. The speed and power of the compilers "seem" to be about equal. It looks to me like the trade off is in price versus development tools. I would not want to have to make a choice between these two compilers. I have not had the need to call the Manx people, but I did call the Megamax folks, and they were helpful in the extreme. Researched my problem, then called back in a very short time. -- "The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct." Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
alien@gcc-opus.ARPA (Alien Wells) (12/03/84)
In article <1285@hao.UUCP> ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) writes: > >I have not had the need to call the Manx people, but I did call >the Megamax folks, and they were helpful in the extreme. Researched >my problem, then called back in a very short time. > I HAVE had an occasion to call the Manx people. We got a version of their compiler in house for evaluation. I took a small application (small enough that it didn't require segmentation) that we were doing and tried to get it to compile. All I got was 'out of space'. I moved to a fat mac. Same result. Repeated calling was to no avail. Usually, the line is busy or no-one answers. When I got someone, it was a salesman who I was finally able to get a tech number out of. The tech number had no reply for almost a week. When I got someone, he promised to 'look into it'. This was about a month ago. Turns out, I don't really care any more. Looking at some *puny* things that compiled showed the code generated was pretty bad. Classic case of a general purpose portable compiler, though it is at least better than Sumaccs. I have had good luck, though, talking with both Megamax and Consulair. All in all, I would recommend Megamax for anyone wants mac stand-alone C. Alien PS: Don't delude yourself. If you are going to do any serious development, you have to have a hard disk, either a HyperDrive or an external hard disk.
pbuck@ihlpg.UUCP (Peter R Buckner) (04/16/85)
Okay, now that you've had your Mac awhile, read IM a dozen times, and finally
figured up a skeleton for you compiler, here's a chance to praise or flame
your C compiler.
By my reckonning there are at least five C compilers:
1) Aztec (Manx) C
2) Consulair C
3) Softworks C
4) Hippo C
5) MegaMax C
Notice I'm talking about Mac resident compilers (SUMMaC doesn't count)
Please send me mail as to your likes, dislikes for which ever compilers you
feel qualified to review. I'll post a summary of whatever I get, and whatever
I can find for myself.
Groundrules:
Let's assume that all are at least K&R, please indicate where this is not true.
In addition, I think we'll have to assume IM is required for serious
development over and above any concomitant documentation.
Discuss as much as you can:
1) any extentions to K&R?
2) what system functions (sprinf(), etc.) are available?
3) how much of the Mac toolbox is supported & how well (C vs. P strings)
4) what is user interface like? (UNIX or Mac?)
5) can it create "double-clickable" routines?
6) what support routines are available (debuggers, lint, context editor)
7) compilation speeds, linking speeds, execution speeds
8) compiler intelligence (optimizer?, good error diagnostics)
9) linker intelligence (size of produced object)
10) any limitations to source size, number of files, etc.?
11) does it create 68K assembler code, P code or just binary?
12) any required (suggested) hardware or software over a 128K Mac?
13) royalties, copy protection, source code availability
14) anything else -- documentation, support, ease of use
Please flame where appropriate, or point to examples of PD software which
have been developed using compiler X. Please mail me your comments so we don't
flood the net with duplicate info. I'll post results in about two weeks.
Thanks in advance.
-Peter Buckner
ihnp4!ihlpg!pbuck
or
AT&T Bell Labs
Naperville, IL 60566
** Replace this line with your clever message **keashly@winston.UUCP (Lance Keashly) (10/15/85)
I just got the Aztec C compiler version 1.06f.
Just imagine my surprise when I found that this compiler is one
of those state of the art "8 character significant" name compilers.
This basicly means that the Aztec C compiler is useless for our code
which often has defines, variables, and function names unique only after
16 characters. (it makes reading the code so much better) We have used
Aztec's compiler for the IBMpc and it has 31 characters significant, so
why is the Mac's so dumb. They said they're fixing it the next release
but the guy I talked to had no idea as to when (phone back in November,
we might know then).
Anyway, does any know of a Mac C compiler with 16 or greater character
significance?? Needless to say I will be returning the Aztec compiler and
I would like to get something I can use.
--
Lance Keashly
New Media Technologies Ltd.
..decvax!microsoft!ubc-vision!winston!keashly
..ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!winston!keashly
#108 4664 Lougheed Highway
Burnaby, B.C., Canada,
V5C 5T5
(604) 291-7111jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (10/16/85)
In article <155@winston.UUCP> keashly@winston.UUCP (Lance Keashly) writes: >I just got the Aztec C compiler version 1.06f. > >Just imagine my surprise when I found that this compiler is one >of those state of the art "8 character significant" name compilers. > >Anyway, does any know of a Mac C compiler with 16 or greater character >significance?? Needless to say I will be returning the Aztec compiler and >I would like to get something I can use. Consulair Mac C -- manual says "All characters significant." -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 "... Don't sue me, I'm just the piano player!...."