vanzandt@uiucdcsp.UUCP (12/11/86)
Question: If I were to buy a C compiler for my AT, which one should I buy?
brimoe@hope.UUCP (Brian Bender) (12/14/86)
> > > Question: If I were to buy a C compiler for my AT, which one > should I buy? Aztec C all the way!!! its expensive but all good things are and aztec is worth it! Brian(moe) @ unixversity of calif riverside
vanzandt@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (12/16/86)
The result is unanimous: Quite a few people mailed me their opinion and 99.9% of you said Microsoft C was the compiler of choice. Thank you for your comments, Lonnie. +=============================================================================+ | arpa vanzandt@p.cs.uiuc.edu vanzandt@uiuc.ARPA | | csnet vanzandt@uiuc.csnet | | usenet ihnp4!uiucdcs!vanzandt | +=============================================================================+
bright@dataio.Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) (12/16/86)
In article <75800002@uiucdcsp> vanzandt@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > Question: If I were to buy a C compiler for my AT, which one > should I buy? That's easy. By Datalight C. It costs $99, and is available from: (206) 367-1803.
ss60f@sdcc18.ucsd.EDU (ss60f) (12/17/86)
--------------- Re Aztec C: not a bad recommendation. I have the latest version (3.40) and have run a lot of code through it, with no problems. The executables it produces are smaller than many other compilers, and it does a reasonably good job at speed optimization. It is also nice to have the library source. I have had some trouble with the Aztec debuggers: they do not seem to work properly when the console is set to character mode, no echo. This is true of the new symbolic debugger as well as the older db. Although I haven't used it, my impression from ads/reviews is that the Codeview debugger that comes with the new Microsoft C compiler (4.00) is superior. The availability of good debugging tools can make a big difference in how much code you can turn out and how fast, so this is an important consideration. Microsoft also has good benchmark results. No library source, though. Dr. Dobb's Journal, Aug. 1986 has a good review of C compilers including Microsoft 4.00 and the next-to-latest version of Aztec C. -Jon Dart Dept. of Anthropology UCSD C-001 La Jolla, CA 92093 ss60f%sdcc18@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU
news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Usenet netnews) (12/17/86)
Organization : California Institute of Technology Keywords: From: tim@tomcat.Caltech.Edu (Tim Kay) Path: tomcat!tim In article <1218@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes: >In article <75800002@uiucdcsp> vanzandt@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> Question: If I were to buy a C compiler for my AT, which one >> should I buy? > >That's easy. By Datalight C. It costs $99, and is available from: >(206) 367-1803. It's even easier by that argument. By Mix C. It costs only $39, and is available from Mix Software, Inc., 2116 E. Arapaho, Suite 363, Richardson, Texas 75081, 214-783-6001. It seems to be a reliable compiler, but I have only used it for small programs. Timothy L. Kay tim@csvax.caltech.edu Department of Computer Science Caltech, 256-80 Pasadena, CA 91125
tfra@ur-tut.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer) (12/17/86)
[Et tu, line-eater?] > Re Aztec C: not a bad recommendation. I have the latest version > (3.40) and have run a lot of code through it, with no problems. The > executables it produces are smaller than many other compilers, and > it does a reasonably good job at speed optimization. It is also nice > to have the library source. > I have had some trouble with the Aztec debuggers: they do not seem > to work properly when the console is set to character mode, no echo. > This is true of the new symbolic debugger as well as the older db. > Although I haven't used it, my impression from ads/reviews is that > the Codeview debugger that comes with the new Microsoft C compiler > (4.00) is superior. The availability of good debugging tools can > make a big difference in how much code you can turn out and how fast, > so this is an important consideration. Microsoft also has good benchmark > results. No library source, though. > -Jon Dart I make use of both AZTEC C (version 3.20) and MS C (Version 4.0). For a project my company is working on I had to determine which of the two compilers to use. I ran the dhrystone benchmark on both compilers using the small and large memory models only (the version of AZTEC we have doesn't allow the mixed models). A typical MSC dhrystone was around 1400; a typical AZTEC dhrystone was around 3200. Other benchmarks showed similar results. Another important result was the size of the object and executable code generated by the two compilers. I compiled abouttwenty different programs and linked them together, again under the small and large memory models. Aztec files were typically about 1/2 to 2/3rds the size of MSC files. This was the same whether we were looking at object or executable files. One more test that I ran on Aztec was the conversion of object to the Microsoft .OBJ format using tools provided by Aztec. While there was a slight increase in code size (typically less than 100 bytes for an object module) when compared with MSC it was still smaller. I also converted the libraries and used Microsoft's linker to link the stuff together. The dhrystone results were a hair slower, but not enough to comment on (maybe 3000 instead of 3200). Oh, my hardware base was an IBM AT with a 30 meg hard disk, 512K memory, PC-DOS Version 3.2, running at 8 MHz. My conclusion was that Aztec gave us more bang for the buck than Microsoft. I didn't try out either debugger (CodeView or db) but I usually find debuggers of limited help - What usually works better for me is to let someone else look at my code (unfortunately, it is accompanied by comments like stupid mistake or the like- maybe I should use a debugger after all :-). Programs seem to run with little modification under either compiler. I also have an older rev of Ecosoft C. If I have a chance, I will try my tests on it to see what happens. - Tom Frauenhofer ...!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!tfra "Aha, Zander Zlaslowych! You thought you could defeat me, but I still have my feet!"
stevenj@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Steven Vore ) (12/18/86)
In article <1358@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> tim@tomcat.UUCP (Tim Kay) writes: >In article <1218@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes >>In article <75800002@uiucdcsp> vanzandt@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >>> Question: If I were to buy a C compiler for my AT, which one >>> should I buy? >>That's easy. By Datalight C. It costs $99, and is available from: >>(206) 367-1803. >It's even easier by that argument. By Mix C. It costs only $39, and is >It seems to be a reliable compiler, but I have only used it for small >programs. >Timothy L. Kay tim@csvax.caltech.edu reliable, mabye, but it produces S-L-O-W programs. Check out an article in a recent Dr. Dobbs (sorry for no date, but I'm at work and the mag's at home) called 'Benchmarking C compilers'. I've been looking too, and I'm probably going to follow Mr. Bright and go with Datalight. Steven J. Vore stevenj@umbc3.umd.edu -------------------- MY opinions, only MINE. belonging only to ME (and others who know what's correct, of course)
rde@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.Eager) (12/19/86)
In article <1218@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes: >In article <75800002@uiucdcsp> vanzandt@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> Question: If I were to buy a C compiler for my AT, which one >> should I buy? > >That's easy. By Datalight C. It costs $99, and is available from: >(206) 367-1803. I just read this after posting my opinion of Zorland C. Looks to me as if it is the same compiler (I always thought it originated in the USA). The giveaway is that the compiler (Zorland, that is) outputs a message saying it was written by Walter Bright.... I'm not knocking him, he has every right to advertise a good product. -- Bob Eager rde@ukc.UUCP rde@ukc ...!mcvax!ukc!rde Phone: +44 227 66822 ext 7589
steveb@zaphod.UUCP (Steve Brozosky) (12/20/86)
In article <75800002@uiucdcsp>, vanzandt@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > > Question: If I were to buy a C compiler for my AT, which one > should I buy? I have found that Microsoft has the best C. If have used both it and the lattice compilers. Also, since Microsoft controls the operating systems, when it makes a change to DOS (e.g. DOS 5) they will be the first to update their C for it. I have also had very good luck in taking sources from UNIX and compiling them on DOS with the Microsoft Compiler.
psfales@ihlpl.UUCP (Peter Fales) (12/21/86)
> >That's easy. By Datalight C. It costs $99, and is available from: > >(206) 367-1803. > > It's even easier by that argument. By Mix C. It costs only $39, and is > available from Mix Software, Inc., 2116 E. Arapaho, Suite 363, > Richardson, Texas 75081, 214-783-6001. I have a copy of Mix C (purchased for $39) which I would gladly sell for the cost of shipping the manuals to anyone interested. The manuals are a reasonably good C tutorial, but I was quite unimpressed with the compiler. It does not produces standard .OBJ files and therefore cannot be linked with the output of other compilers or assemblers. The programs do not stand alone, but require an overlay file present on the disk (though to be fair, there is a way around that). However, the worst complaint I have is that the performance is very poor. I wrote a program that did nothing more than open a file and print the bytes in hex. One can see a noticeable slowdown in comparing the hex output to the title lines that were done with a simple printf. Admittedly, this is not much of a benchmark but it didn't encourage me to try much more. The whole package seemed to have sort af a "toy" feel to it. The compiler that I swear by is the ECO-C88 Compiler for $59 from Ecosoft, Inc.; 6413 N College Ave.;Indianopois, IN 46220. (312)255-6476. Features include: All C features, data types (except bit-fields), and operators. Tiered error checking - at high levels it checks many of the same things that lint does. Excellent set of library functions including many that are System V compatible. A great product at a great price. -- Peter Fales UUCP: ...ihnp4!ihlpl!psfales work: (312) 979-7784 AT&T Information Systems, IW 1Z-243 1100 E. Warrenville Rd., IL 60566