brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (08/29/89)
Does anyone have this product? Is it worth the $299 they ask for it?
Does the compiler produce the same slow executing code that the old DOS
version did? The DOS 3.3 Aztec C had source to the editor and libraries.
Does source for the compiler come with the package (so that one could
conceivably improve the code generation)? Most important, will this
product run on a 40 column II Plus with 64K (128K with the TransWarp
active)? I've been struggling for months trying to work out a way to get
decent C programs written and compiled on my II Plus.
Brian Willoughby
UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw
InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET
or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM
Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCPCYLau@UNCAMULT.BITNET (The Ultron) (08/29/89)
Manx Aztec C (ProDOS)-> No, it's not worth $299... IMHO, it is not even worth half of that... Although Manx did a good job on the operating environment (The shell is an excellent copy of the Unix Bourne shell, and things like Make, diff, grep are good too), the main part of the package-> The C compiler itself is too slow... Even on a GS with a Transwarp, everything on Ramdisk the thing is STILL slow.. If it's that slow on a GS, what do you think it will be like on a //+ with floppies?? I shudder at the thought... And good luck if you're thinking of porting any Unix C programs over.. the compiler chokes on the majority of them (no curses or Sys V or BSD libs). Manx did a good job on the operating environment, it's a pleasure to work in, but the compiler itself is too slow for any practical use.. I'm not knocking Manx, they make a pretty decent compiler on the pc and the amiga, but their performance on the Apple is just pitiful... Chris
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (08/30/89)
In article <7547@microsoft.UUCP> brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) writes: >Does anyone have this product? Is it worth the $299 they ask for it? Yes, I used it for quite some time on my Apple //e and still occasionally on my Apple IIGS, although now I usually use Orca/C (IIGS only). >Does the compiler produce the same slow executing code that the old DOS >version did? It has the option of in-line or interpreted code, or a combination of both. The in-line code is not particularly slow, considering the 6502's deficiencies as a C engine. Compilation does take a long time. I usually go out for coffee while the compiler runs. >The DOS 3.3 Aztec C had source to the editor and libraries. >Does source for the compiler come with the package (so that one could >conceivably improve the code generation)? No, there are library, editor, etc. sources but no compiler sources (for obvious reasons). >Most important, will this product run on a 40 column II Plus with 64K >(128K with the TransWarp active)? I believe it will, but I haven't tried that configuration. >I've been struggling for months trying to work out a way to get >decent C programs written and compiled on my II Plus. Aztec C "professional" is the only 8-bit Apple C I've ever found that was worth using. I hope you have a hard disk, though, since with only two 5.25" floppies it is a pain to compile and link.
throoph@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Henry Throop) (09/03/89)
In article <890829035130.504866@UNCAMULT.BITNET> CYLau@UNCAMULT.BITNET (The Ultron) writes: > >Manx Aztec C (ProDOS)-> No, it's not worth $299... IMHO, it is not even >worth half of that... Although Manx did a good job on the operating >environment (The shell is an excellent copy of the Unix Bourne shell, >and things like Make, diff, grep are good too), the main part of the >package-> The C compiler itself is too slow. [...] >chris If all you're looking for is the shell and vi-type editor, they include that in their $19 Apprentice C package. Technically it's an interpreter, meaning that execution speed isn't real fast, but compilation is pretty quick (15 seconds or so for 'Hello World'). For a C idiot like me who's just trying to play around with the language a bit, it's fine. Henry