kdmoen@watcgl.UUCP (Doug Moen) (06/16/85)
>A Megamax c -Unix cross compiler is now available. I quote from the >newsletter: > >"June 1, 1985 we will release Megamax C running under a UNIX enviornment. >Developers will be able to create Macintosh applications using the power of >the UNIX operating system. The system is comprised of all programs on the >Macintosh version of Megamax C with the addition of a UNIX based resource >compiler and a down-load desk accessory for the Macintosh. Price is $3000." Sumacc is available free of charge and works quite well. You do need a Vax running 4.1bsd, 4.2bsd or Eunice to use it in its distributed form. If you don't know anybody that you can get a copy from, there is a company in Sunnyvale CA who will send you a tape for $65. I'm willing to mail out ordering information if anyone out there wants it. If anyone knows a good reason why someone with a copy of Sumacc would want to buy the Megamax C Unix cross-compiler, I'd be fascinated in hearing it. Doug Moen, U of Waterloo Computer Graphics Lab
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (06/16/85)
[] > From: kdmoen@watcgl.UUCP (Doug Moen) > If anyone knows a good reason why someone with a copy of Sumacc would want > to buy the Megamax C Unix cross-compiler, I'd be fascinated in hearing it. The Megamax library lowercases ROM calls. For example, ClearMenuBar would be called as clearmenubar (or Clearmenubar -- I forget which). Code that compiles under Sumacc won't compile under Megamax. (Well, I didn't promise a *good* reason ... ). A better reason is that people who are involved in large development projects like to use tools that are provided by companies legally bound to support them. -- Melinda Shore University of Chicago Computation Center uucp: ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor Bitnet: shor%sphinx@uchicago.bitnet
sas1@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Schmukler) (06/17/85)
Don't forget that Megamax can do over lays. SaS
peirce@lll-crg.ARPA (Michael Peirce) (06/18/85)
> >A Megamax c -Unix cross compiler is now available. I quote from the > >newsletter: > > > >"June 1, 1985 we will release Megamax C running under a UNIX enviornment. > >Developers will be able to create Macintosh applications using the power of > >the UNIX operating system. The system is comprised of all programs on the > >Macintosh version of Megamax C with the addition of a UNIX based resource > >compiler and a down-load desk accessory for the Macintosh. Price is $3000." > > Sumacc is available free of charge and works quite well. > You do need a Vax running 4.1bsd, 4.2bsd or Eunice to use it > in its distributed form. If you don't know anybody that you can > get a copy from, there is a company in Sunnyvale CA who will send you > a tape for $65. I'm willing to mail out ordering information if anyone out > there wants it. > > If anyone knows a good reason why someone with a copy of Sumacc would want > to buy the Megamax C Unix cross-compiler, I'd be fascinated in hearing it. > > Doug Moen, U of Waterloo Computer Graphics Lab The first thing that comes to mind is that Megamax C does support the Mac's memory management. That can be a big plus when you are developing large programs for 128K Macs. Another reason might be that you've started developing using Megamax C on a Macintosh, but decided to go full blast ahead and want the speed of a Vax to complile/link/etc your programs. michael
sjl@amdahl.UUCP (Steve Langdon) (06/18/85)
> >A Megamax c -Unix cross compiler is now available. I quote from the > >newsletter: ... > Sumacc is available free of charge and works quite well. > You do need a Vax running 4.1bsd, 4.2bsd or Eunice to use it > in its distributed form. If you don't know anybody that you can > get a copy from, there is a company in Sunnyvale CA who will send you > a tape for $65. I'm willing to mail out ordering information if anyone out > there wants it. > > If anyone knows a good reason why someone with a copy of Sumacc would want > to buy the Megamax C Unix cross-compiler, I'd be fascinated in hearing it. > > Doug Moen, U of Waterloo Computer Graphics Lab We have a copy of Sumacc that runs quite nicely on UTS (Amdahl's port of System V Rel 2) thanks to John Chmielewski of AT&T who did a nice port to System V and cleaned up a lot of Vax specific code. Things compile a lot faster on an Amdahl mainframe than they do on my Mac (or a Vax for that matter). However, I find Mac C from Consulair a more useful development system for many programs. One of the advantages is support of the C Standard IO library calls. If you are trying to port a useful C program from another system you do not always want to convert all of the IO to Mac traps. For example, I have ported the excellent compress program that has been distributed on the net a couple of times. It would be much more difficult to do this using SuMacC. Another major reason to use Mac C is that it supports the Mac segment loader. Big applications compiled on SumMacC will not run on a 128K Mac. I believe that Megamax also supports the segment loader. I could continue, but I hope that the point is made. None of what I have said should be taken as criticism of Bill Croft who has done the Mac programming community a great service by his work on SumMacC. Rather, I was attempting to show that other compilers have their own advantages to offer. Melinda Shore's comment that mentions Megamax's non-standard toolbox names shows that there are some screwups to watch out for too. -- Stephen J. Langdon ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun,nsc}!amdahl!sjl [ The article above is not an official statement from any organization in the known universe. ]
dave@rocksvax.UUCP (06/19/85)
About the lower case names, they have a hack program that will translate the
"correct" names to the all lower case names that they used. It will
back-convert also. I really wish they would have used the Inside Mac
names or the Unix standard capitalizations but they decided to use
their own. Personally I find things like findwindow() much harder to
read the FindWindow().
Dave
arpa: Sewhuk.HENR@Xerox.ARPA
uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,rochester,amd,sunybcs}!rocksvax!davejhf@lanl.ARPA (06/21/85)
> About the lower case names, they have a hack program that will translate the > "correct" names to the all lower case names that they used. It will > back-convert also. I really wish they would have used the Inside Mac > names or the Unix standard capitalizations but they decided to use > their own. Personally I find things like findwindow() much harder to > read the FindWindow(). Can't you just do with an include file with definitions like #define FindWindow findwindow ?