mark@elsie.UUCP (Mark J. Miller) (02/04/87)
Does anyone have experience with the "Let's C" compiler and CSD debugger from Mark Williams Co.? There was a rather favorable review of it in the August BYTE, but I'd like to hear from someone who's actually using it. I have a 6MHz PC/AT at home, and would like an inexpensive C compiler to play with (I've been programing in C for several years now). This one looks like a pretty good deal. Any experiences? Thanx, --elsie!mark -- Mark J. Miller NIH/NCI/DCE/LEC UUCP: decvax!!seismo!elsie!mark Phone: (301) 496-5688
psfales@ihlpl.UUCP (02/07/87)
> Does anyone have experience with the "Let's C" compiler and CSD debugger > from Mark Williams Co.? There was a rather favorable review of it in > the August BYTE, but I'd like to hear from someone who's actually using > it. I have both the Mark Williams "Let's C" and the ECO C-88 C Compiler by Ecosoft. I have stopped using the Mark Williams compiler because I find the Ecosoft compiler to be much superior. The MW compiler does not produce standard MS-DOS .OBJ files so you have to use their own linker - this makes it difficult to link in foreign binaries such as assembly code unless you purchase their private assembler which is not provided with "Let's C" The Ecosoft compiler is a complete implementation (the latest release includes bit fields) and has a number of other nice features such as tiered error checking (many lint-like checks), the new ANSI standard feature called "prototyping" for catching errors in function arguments, and a very complete library including many "UN*X like" system calls. You can optionally generate MASM compatible assembly files, another thing the MW compiler cannot do. The kicker is that all this costs less than "Let's C" When I last checked "Let's C" was $79.95, the latest Ecosoft compiler is $59.95 Feel free to contact me for more information, or contact Ecosoft at 1-800-952-0472 (orders) or 1-317-255-6476 (technical info). Disclaimer: I have no connection with Mark Williams Company or Ecosoft other than as a very satisfied customer. -- Peter Fales UUCP: ...ihnp4!ihlpl!psfales work: (312) 979-7784 AT&T Information Systems, IW 1Z-243 1100 E. Warrenville Rd., IL 60566
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (02/08/87)
I would suggest waiting a few months before buying an inexpensive C
compiler. Borland has promised Turbo C for March, and Microsoft
is rumored to have QuickC in beta. Either of these might be a
better vehicle for learning the language.
I hope that MS gets the QuickC out, because I like the user
interface of QuickBasic better than Turbo (personal opinion,
of course).
--
bill davidsen sixhub \
ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz -> crdos1!davidsen
chinet /
ARPA: davidsen%crdos1.uucp@ge-crd.ARPA (or davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)scott@tg.UUCP (02/09/87)
In article <1702@ihlpl.UUCP> psfales@ihlpl.UUCP (Peter Fales) writes: >> Does anyone have experience with the "Let's C" compiler and CSD debugger >> from Mark Williams Co.? There was a rather favorable review of it in >> the August BYTE, but I'd like to hear from someone who's actually using >> it. > >I have both the Mark Williams "Let's C" and the ECO C-88 C Compiler >by Ecosoft. I have stopped using the Mark Williams compiler because I >find the Ecosoft compiler to be much superior. The MW compiler does >not produce standard MS-DOS .OBJ files so you have to use their own >linker - this makes it difficult to link in foreign binaries such as >assembly code unless you purchase their private assembler which is >not provided with "Let's C" Just a note: I have the Let's C compiler and it did come with the assembler. By the way the compiler works, it is looking for the program "as" in the "standard" places. I am not pleased with the Let's C compiler! It has the tendency to over optimize programs and has changed functionality at times (like leaving off a particular assignment it decides can be eliminated in the name of optimization). Also, the csd debugger has some problems with output when resetting window to stay on the source (like output overwrites the source) and cannot look at individual bit fields. A friend of mine just got a copy of the Datalight C compiler. I am not sure if this is the Optimal-C advertised in "Computer Language" as being faster than Microsoft's version 4 C (anything is better than Microshaft :-}), but it seems to be a good, complete package for under $100! I would suggest to anyone who is interested in purchasing a C Compiler to see the February, 1987 edition of "Computer Language" magazine, which is dedicated to C. Scott Barman {philabs, pyrnj}!tg!scott
ch2g#@andrew.cmu.edu.UUCP (02/10/87)
> The MW compiler does not produce standard MS-DOS > .OBJ files so you have to use their own linker - this makes > it difficult to link in foreign binaries such as assembly code > unless you purchase their private assembler which is not > provided with "Let's C" When I bought "Let's C," the assembler came with it. I found it to be an excellent small model compiler with a UN*X cc style interface. It produces excellent code and comes with uEMACS and several UN*X style utilities. Christopher Hoover Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ARPANET: (*) ch2g#@andrew.cmu.edu ch2g@tc.cc.cmu.edu ch2g@drycas.club.cmu.edu q104ch2g@vb.cc.cmu.edu BITNET: (*) ch2g@DRYCAS q104ch2g@CMCCVB UUCP: ...!ihnp4!cmucspt!andrew.cmu.edu!ch2g# US MAIL: Box 1130 1060 Morewood Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15213 AT&T: (412) 268-8667
ddc@osupyr.UUCP (07/09/87)
I have seen several recent messages commenting on Turbo C or Quick C. I haven't seen any comments on Let's C. The ads for version 4.0 look very good: fast compile, UNIX compatible, csd debugger included free, etc. Has anyone out there had any experience with this compiler? As expected, I will summarize replies back to the net. Don Comeau Dept of Chemistry Ohio State University Bitnet: TS3655@OHSTMVSA