apxpecc@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Jeffrey P. Horvath) (01/19/88)
Has anyone had experience with the MIX C compiler and utilities. Can this $40 compiler, debugger, editor package be a bonified compiler for a serious C programmer? I would appreciate any comments. How about comparisons to Turbo C?? Any takers? Jeff Horvath uucp: ihnp4!ihlpf!apxpecc
karthur@codas.att.com (Kurt_R_Arthur) (01/21/88)
In article <3424@ihlpf.ATT.COM> apxpecc@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Jeffrey P. Horvath) writes: > > Has anyone had experience with the MIX C compiler and > utilities. Can this $40 compiler, debugger, editor package > be a bonified compiler for a serious C programmer? > I would appreciate any comments. How about comparisons to > Turbo C?? I purchased the Mix C compiler several years ago & was pleased with it within reason. It is fine as a compiler for learning C. It is terrible, however for a Developer. It is slow, (kind of) buggy, & (at least my version) creates only .COM files, which limit you to 64K programs. One nice thing about the package though, is the Debugger. It is everything CodeView should have been, and more. I have actually written difficult code in Mix just to be able to use C-Trace to fix it, then ported it to a professional compiler (both Lattice & Microsoft) for final compilation. I just wish Borland would license the debugger for use with Turbo C: they'd blow MS out of the water! I have never used the editor (it was extra cost when I bought the compiler). Recap: The package is OK for learning C, but not for use for development. Regards, Kurt Arthur Software Services of Florida, Inc.
hollen@suntory.megatek.uucp (Dion Hollenbeck) (01/21/88)
In article <3424@ihlpf.ATT.COM> apxpecc@ihlpf.UUCP (Jeffrey P. Horvath) writes: >Has anyone had experience with the MIX C compiler and >utilities. Can this $40 compiler, debugger, editor package >be a bonified compiler for a serious C programmer? >I would appreciate any comments. How about comparisons to >Turbo C?? > I originally bought the MIX C package when it was $89.95 and even at that price I considered it a bargain. There are several pros and cons to this package: Pro === 1 - inexpensive 2 - excellent willingness on part of support staff 3 - outstanding documentation 4 - a source level debugger even better than Codeview (Microsoft) 5 - selective optimization for speed/size and ways to access assembly modules 4 - outstanding number of library functions for accessing PC and DOS specific functions Con === 1 - Unless changed since a year ago, this compiler does not produce .obj files and requires its own linker. What it produces is a .com file with an interpreter at the beginning and P-code following. 2 - only produces small model code. 3 - debugger will NOT debug into assembly. If you are learning C, or writing a small (less than 64k combined code, data, stack and heap) model program with not much interfacing to assembly interfacing, this is the package for you. It is well done and very useable. At $39.95 it would be worth it just to get the documentation. It is the most informative straightforward introduction to C I have ever seen as well as numerous clear examples. Dion Hollenbeck (619) 455-5590 x2814 Megatek Corporation, 9645 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121 ames!scubed! {sdcsvax,hplabs}!hp-sdd!megatek!hollen sdcsvax!esosun!
steve@slovax.UUCP (Steve Cook) (01/21/88)
in article <3424@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, apxpecc@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Jeffrey P. Horvath) says: > Has anyone had experience with the MIX C compiler and > utilities. Can this $40 compiler, debugger, editor package > be a bonified compiler for a serious C programmer? I just bought the package, recieved it in the mail yesterday. If it actually does all is says it will do I'll be very impressed. Especially for 40$ Has a very large library of functions. Can mix in obj files from elsewhere but have to convert them into Mix format (they provide a routine for that). I'll try it all out in the next couple of days and respond . Don't have Turbo-c, but do have Aztec, Microsoft, and Mark Williams C's. Should be able to compare them...
psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) (01/22/88)
In article <3424@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, apxpecc@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Jeffrey P. Horvath) writes: > Has anyone had experience with the MIX C compiler and utilities. Can > this $40 compiler, debugger, editor package be a bonified compiler > for a serious C programmer? I would appreciate any comments. How > about comparisons to Turbo C?? The compiler was unspectacular, the editor was pretty bad, and the debugger was pretty good. The run time library is *enormous*. You can overlay it (keeping your .EXEs small but impossible to distribute), or include it (making your .EXEs huge). Slow code. Large model was due Real Soon Now when I had the compiler. It's probably out by now. The version I had used a proprietary object file format, which means you can't use third party libraries unless you have C source code. The "translator" only worked in one direction (theirs to .OBJ, I think), and wasn't very useful. The debugger was actually written by someone else. I suspect you'd be better off with Turbo C 1.5 (and someone's debugger; e.g., Codeview from MASM 5.0), or Quick C. > Jeff Horvath, ihnp4!ihlpf!apxpecc -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. (The word is "bona fide", by the way.)
haynes@lll-lcc.aRpA (Robby R. Haynes) (01/22/88)
I bought the MIX C editor only a while back for CP/M-80. Although there were a few nice features, there were enough bugs I ran accross I didn't want to use it.