[comp.lang.modula2] Working with FST Modula-2: Opinions, anyone?

jmh@coyote.uucp (John Hughes) (10/25/90)

I've been using Roger Carvalho's Fitted Software Tools Modula-2
compiler for quite a while now, and I've come to like it. Other
than some I/O mechanisms I didn't agree with (and which were
easily changed, since registered owners get the sources to all the
library modules) I really haven't run into anything that seemed
insurmountable.

Granted, it may not be the best compiler for extremely large projects,
or those that require object overlays and such. Then again, maybe it
is... I don't know, since I haven't really done anything that fits
into the catagory of what I consider "large" with it yet.

So, does anyone have opinions about this shareware product? Is it
suitable for large projects? How does it stack up against the
commercial compilers? Should I consider switching to a commerical
compiler?

By the way, for those not familiar with this product, it can be
found on many BBS's around the US. The shareware distribution version
is also available from the FST BBS at (214) 517-4629. There was
also a conference on the BIX system, but I don't know the status
of that.

-John Hughes


-- 
==============================================================================
 John M. Hughes    | jmh@coyote.UUCP                  | Programmer at large,
 P.O. Box 43305    | john.hughes@emdisle.fidonet.org  | or large programmer.
 Tucson, AZ 85719  | noao!coyote!jmh                  | Take your choice,

draper@cpsin2.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) (10/26/90)

In article <1990Oct25.030545.16556@coyote.uucp> jmh@coyote.UUCP (John Hughes) writes:
>
>I've been using Roger Carvalho's Fitted Software Tools Modula-2
>compiler for quite a while now, and I've come to like it. Other
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well I like it too. I've used FST for a couple of months now, and have
few complaints.

>than some I/O mechanisms I didn't agree with (and which were
>easily changed, since registered owners get the sources to all the
>library modules) I really haven't run into anything that seemed
>insurmountable.

The source code is the reason I registered. It's been a while - maybe
it'll arrive soon.....

>
>Granted, it may not be the best compiler for extremely large projects,
>or those that require object overlays and such. Then again, maybe it
>is... I don't know, since I haven't really done anything that fits
>into the catagory of what I consider "large" with it yet.

In my opinion, you can do large projects with FST. The only problem
you'll encounter is a huge *.exe file. From the standpoint of
reliability, FST is fairly bug free, and none of the bugs I've seen will
interfere with writing very large programs. The linker is kind of slow
compared to the compiler, and I really wish there was a way to
substitute an editor for the mc editor. Maybe if there was a compiler
switch to exit the compiler after errors instead of going to the
integrated editor. 

>
>So, does anyone have opinions about this shareware product? Is it
>suitable for large projects? How does it stack up against the
>commercial compilers? Should I consider switching to a commerical
>compiler?

The FST compiler is sweetness. I can't think of any better bargains
anywhere. The price and features are just right.

>By the way, for those not familiar with this product, it can be
>found on many BBS's around the US. The shareware distribution version
>is also available from the FST BBS at (214) 517-4629. There was
>also a conference on the BIX system, but I don't know the status
>of that.
>
>-John Hughes
>
>
>-- 
>==============================================================================
> John M. Hughes    | jmh@coyote.UUCP                  | Programmer at large,
> P.O. Box 43305    | john.hughes@emdisle.fidonet.org  | or large programmer.
> Tucson, AZ 85719  | noao!coyote!jmh                  | Take your choice,


Patrick Draper --- Michigan State University

csgr@quagga.uucp (Geoff Rehmet) (10/27/90)

In <1990Oct25.195628.324@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> draper@cpsin2.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) writes:

>In article <1990Oct25.030545.16556@coyote.uucp> jmh@coyote.UUCP (John Hughes) writes:
>>
>>I've been using Roger Carvalho's Fitted Software Tools Modula-2
>>compiler for quite a while now, and I've come to like it. Other
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Well I like it too. I've used FST for a couple of months now, and have
>few complaints.

At Rhodes University we are using FST for our courses in Modula-2.
Since the middle of my first year I have been using JPI, but I still 
consider FST to be a good product (considering it is shareware).  The 
compiler isn't a heck of a lot slower than JPI (version 1.something), but
as mentioned the linker does take it's time.  

I do find it a bit difficult to trace run-time errors with FST (JPI takes
you to the right spot in the source text), but you can learn to live with
that.

Unfortunately the size of FST executeables is a bit on the large side.  For
serious programs I prefer to go for JPI, because the smallest FST executable
I've managed to create is about 20K (2 or 3K with JPI).


On the whole though, I think that Fitted Software Tools should keep up the
good work!

Geoff Rehmet.
-- 
Geoff Rehmet       |      Internet: csgr.quagga@f4.n494.z5.fidonet.org          
Rhodes University  |                csgr@quagga.ru.ac.za (soon - I hope)     
Grahamstown        |      UUCP    : ..uunet!m2xenix!quagga!csgr
-------------------+      Uninet  : csgr@quagga

reid@CTC.CONTEL.COM (Tom Reid x4505) (10/29/90)

= >>I've been using Roger Carvalho's Fitted Software Tools Modula-2
= >>compiler for quite a while now, and I've come to like it. Other
= >

I agree with the others that debugging is a pain and that the produced code
size is not as small as one would ilke, but I have used it for a couple
of years in a graduate translator construction course quite successfully.

The students like the Turbo Pascal-like environment though the translator
writer system for the course will not link edit successfully within the
environment so one must exit and link separately (thank goodness for
.BAT files).  At about 6K LOC, the TWS isn't that large but there is a
limit on how much 640+64=704K can hold.

All-in-all, I find it a very comfortable compiler.

Tom

Thomas F. Reid, Ph. D.                   (703)818-4505 (work)
Contel Technology Center                 (703)742-8720 (home)
15000 Conference Center Drive            Net: reid@ctc.contel.com
P.O. Box 10814
Chantilly, Va.  22021-3808

Patrick.Verkaik@p99.f124.n512.z2.fidonet.org (Patrick Verkaik) (10/31/90)

Hello John,

In a message to All <26 Oct 90  9:23:00> John Hughes wrote:

 JH> So, does anyone have opinions about this shareware product? Is it

Yes, I have...
I like it very much, but then, it's the only one I've ever used...

 JH> suitable for large projects? How does it stack up against the

I don't know about that, but I seem to remember there were some limitations on a few things (variables or number of IMPORTS or something)...

Patrick

--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!2!512!124.99!Patrick.Verkaik
Internet: Patrick.Verkaik@p99.f124.n512.z2.fidonet.org