drh@spock.uucp (David R. Hawley) (12/04/89)
I'm considering purchasing either the latest Manx, or Lattice compilers. What are the relative advantages of each compiler. For example why does the Manx version I see sitting on the dealers shelf cost $150 and the Lattice version cost $250? Which one is more "UNIX like"? Which one do more developers use, ie. developers on the Fred Fish disks? Is one better for graphics, and so on.... David
rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie (12/05/89)
In article <34886@spock.uucp>, drh@spock.uucp (David R. Hawley) writes: > I'm considering purchasing either the latest Manx, or > Lattice compilers. What are the relative advantages > of each compiler. For example why does the Manx > version I see sitting on the dealers shelf cost $150 > and the Lattice version cost $250? Which one is more > "UNIX like"? Which one do more developers use, ie. > developers on the Fred Fish disks? Is one better for > graphics, and so on.... - Manx is more UNIX like, it comes with grep, make, diff and a few other things. Both compilers have utilities which only come with the high-end version. - Manx is faster at compiling. - Manx has an assembler phase and the assembler is better for stand-alone use than anything else I've seen other than ArgAsm. Lattice has no assembler phase but still manages to take longer to compile. - Manx is a lot more compact which is brilliant if you're trying to cram stuff into RAM disk on a machine with limited memory. Also means it loads off disk faster. - Lattice uses standard object file format. Manx doesn't, which makes it difficult to link with other compilers/assemblers. - More existing code is written for Lattice because it was the compiler originally available. Right now I'd say developers are more or less evenly divided. - Manx has precompiled include files which are a lot better than Lattice's compact include files. - Manx 3.6 is original K&R C. Lattice 5.0 is full ANSI C. - Usually Manx generates more compact code, Lattice generates slightly faster code. - Both compilers now have source level debuggers, both have a choice of 16 or 32 bit ints, both have optional run-time stack checking. I myself use Manx 3.6 mainly on the grounds of the compiler being more compact and faster, but I'm thinking of switching to Lattice C because of the full ANSI compliance and the standard object file format. Of course, I'd still use the Aztec UNIX utilities. "To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem" Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin VMS: rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie UNIX: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
c164-dj@katerina.uucp (Dan Filner) (12/06/89)
As a developer recently transformed from MANX to LATTICE territory.. (My two bits): In article <4016@vax1.tcd.ie> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes: >- Manx has an assembler phase and the assembler is better for stand-alone use >than anything else I've seen other than ArgAsm. Lattice has no assembler phase >but still manages to take longer to compile. > Lattice has an assembler included but it lacks some important directives. label reg Rn, for instance. > >- Usually Manx generates more compact code, Lattice generates slightly faster >code. From my one-big-project-on-the-amiga experience : The game, developed in Microsoft C/IBM, ported to Manx Amiga, then only recently recompiled under Lattice Amiga, ran about 126K under Manx - but only 85K under Lattice 5.04. (It didn't work right away but was fixable) >I myself use Manx 3.6 mainly on the grounds of the compiler being more compact >and faster, but I'm thinking of switching to Lattice C because of the full ANSI >compliance and the standard object file format. Of course, I'd still use the >Aztec UNIX utilities. > I was using Manx because it existed identically on the ST and Amiga (twin port targets for a graphic adventure) but have switched to Lattice for smaller executables. Of course, I still use the Aztec UNIX utilities. -------------------- I have no other interest in either Manx or Lattice than as a comsumer. -------------------- Dan Filner Contracting Developer for the ST and Amiga no permanent email-address
rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (the Wizard of Speed and Time) (12/06/89)
In article <4016@vax1.tcd.ie> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes: >- Manx is more UNIX like, it comes with grep, make, diff and a few other >things. Both compilers have utilities which only come with the high-end >version. I think you're wrong here. I have Lattice 5.0, and it does come with diff, grep, make, cxref, lstat, lprof, and grep linker libraries if you want to use the pattern matching routines. There are some other utilities as well. Basically, Lattice gave up on the Compiler Companion as a seperate product and decided to throw it in with 5.0. -- Rich Carreiro - Most Biased Boston Celtics Fan! "So long, farewell, and may ARPA: rlcarr@space.mit.edu the forces of evil become UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!space.mit.edu!rlcarr confused on the way to your BITNET: rlcarr@space.mit.edu door!" - George Carlin
jac@muslix.llnl.gov (James Crotinger) (12/07/89)
In article <4016@vax1.tcd.ie> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes: > >- Manx is more UNIX like, it comes with grep, make, diff and a few other >things. Both compilers have utilities which only come with the high-end >version. > Lattice also comes with make, diff, and grep as well as some other UNIX and non-UNIX utilities. It also has a profiler and a post-mortem trace back facility that I don't think Manx 3.6 has. Starting with 5.0, Lattice only has one C compiler package which comes standard with all the utilities, C compiler, assembler, AND source level debugger (a seperate product from Manx). >- Manx is faster at compiling. > But only somewhat. Less than a factor of two. Neither compiler is blindingly fast, ala Think C on the Mac. 8-(. >- Manx has an assembler phase and the assembler is better for stand-alone use >than anything else I've seen other than ArgAsm. Lattice has no assembler phase >but still manages to take longer to compile. > Very subjective. The Manx assembler is not compatible with the original Metacompost Assembler, which is sort of the standard. It's also not all that fast. I use CAPE. Lattice also compiles in two stages, but rather than have the first stage compile to a machine specific assembly language, it compiles to a machine independent language. This way the front end of the compiler is basically machine independent. Lattice comes with an assembler and a full set of assembly include files. >- Manx is a lot more compact which is brilliant if you're trying to cram stuff >into RAM disk on a machine with limited memory. Also means it loads off disk >faster. > The Lattice compiler and linker are pure, though, so they can be made resident. (Perhaps this can be done with Manx as well - I don't know). > >- Manx has precompiled include files which are a lot better than Lattice's >compact include files. > Lattice 5.0 also supports precompiling header files (in addition to the header file compression). >- Manx 3.6 is original K&R C. Lattice 5.0 is full ANSI C. Lattice 5.0 isn't quite ANSI C, though 5.04 seems to have fixed most of the descrepencies that I can think of at the moment. I don't think Lattice supports trigraphs and some obscure orderings of declarators. >- Usually Manx generates more compact code, Lattice generates slightly faster >code. > As with speed of compilation, the differences here are much less than they used to be. >I myself use Manx 3.6 mainly on the grounds of the compiler being more compact >and faster, but I'm thinking of switching to Lattice C because of the full ANSI >compliance and the standard object file format. Of course, I'd still use the >Aztec UNIX utilities. I have both, but these days I use only Lattice due to the ANSI support and the fact that I also have their C++ system. > >"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem" >Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin >VMS: rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie >UNIX: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie Jim
fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) (12/07/89)
From article <4016@vax1.tcd.ie>, by rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie: > - Manx has precompiled include files which are a lot better than Lattice's > compact include files. Lattice added the ability to precompile include files with version 5.0. --Fabbian Dufoe 350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 813-823-2350 UUCP: ...uunet!pdn!jc3b21!fgd3
840445m@aucs.uucp (Alan McKay) (12/07/89)
In article <4016@vax1.tcd.ie> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes: > >- Manx is more UNIX like, it comes with grep, make, diff and a few other Lattice ... it's ALL in there > >- Manx is faster at compiling. That's debatable > >- Manx has an assembler phase and the assembler is better for stand-alone use >than anything else I've seen other than ArgAsm. Lattice has no assembler phase OK, granted > >- Manx is a lot more compact which is brilliant if you're trying to cram stuff >into RAM disk on a machine with limited memory. Also means it loads off disk >faster. I am not sure about this so I will not comment > >- Lattice uses standard object file format. Manx doesn't, which makes it >difficult to link with other compilers/assemblers. Yes, this means Lattice code can be mixed with code from any other package that uses the standard, while Manx cannot. This is (IMHO) a very big advantage in the same way that IFF is. > >- More existing code is written for Lattice because it was the compiler >originally available. Right now I'd say developers are more or less evenly >divided. Granted > >- Manx has precompiled include files which are a lot better than Lattice's >compact include files. Lattice 5.0 does this as well > [some stuff omitted] > >I myself use Manx 3.6 mainly on the grounds of the compiler being more compact >and faster, but I'm thinking of switching to Lattice C because of the full ANSI >compliance and the standard object file format. Of course, I'd still use the >Aztec UNIX utilities. Why not use the ones that come with Lattice 5.0 instead? Also, I use Lattice mainly because 5.0 comes in an integrated environment similar to that of Turbo C and Turbo Pascal on the Pee Cee. (Although not quite as flashy). The only problem with this is that you have to use the LSE editor if you want this feature. (LSE is Lattice's own editor which comes with the package). Fortunately the editor is very powerful so I didn't mind switching. I am waiting for someone to implement an AREXX port so that you can have an integrated environment with whatever editor you wanted. Also, an AREXX port would make the compiler much more powerful in other respects. > >"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem" >Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin >VMS: rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie >UNIX: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie -- + Alan W. McKay + VOICE: (902) 542-1565 + + Acadia University + "Courage my friend, it is not yet too late + + WOLFVILLE, N.S. + to make the world a better place." + + 840445m@AcadiaU.CA + - Tommy Douglas +
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (12/12/89)
(some balancing comments...) In article <4016@vax1.tcd.ie> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes: >- Manx is more UNIX like, it comes with grep, make, diff and a few other >things. Both compilers have utilities which only come with the high-end >version. The Lattice compiler now includes (as of 4.0 I believe) lmk (make), grep, diff, splat (files type utility), wc and some others. And cpr the debugger. >- Manx is faster at compiling. True. >- Manx has an assembler phase and the assembler is better for stand-alone use >than anything else I've seen other than ArgAsm. Lattice has no assembler phase >but still manages to take longer to compile. Lattice doesn't compile to assembly, however a utility is provided (OMD) to disassemble .o files into assembly source. Lattice also includes asm a separate assembler that is compatible with the MetaComCo Amiga Assembler. >- Manx is a lot more compact which is brilliant if you're trying to cram stuff >into RAM disk on a machine with limited memory. Also means it loads off disk >faster. And you can make Lattice resident if you want even more speed. Truely though Lattice favors larger memory systems. >- Lattice uses standard object file format. Manx doesn't, which makes it >difficult to link with other compilers/assemblers. True. >- More existing code is written for Lattice because it was the compiler >originally available. Right now I'd say developers are more or less evenly >divided. Some code could be run on both so how do you count that? Generally Lattice code lints cleaner because the compiler complains more but either way most code is usable on either system. Especially if you use Manx in 32 bit mode. >- Manx has precompiled include files which are a lot better than Lattice's >compact include files. "lot" is subjective, they are better. Lattice will let you do incremental linking if you choose which can be faster but the interface is a bit strange. >- Manx 3.6 is original K&R C. Lattice 5.0 is full ANSI C. Also Manx libraries tend to be like the BSD library, whereas Lattice's tend to be like System V libraries. >- Usually Manx generates more compact code, Lattice generates slightly faster >code. I'm not so sure about this anymore. This may still be true for the "no switches" mode. But given equal effort I think the code sizes are similar. Especially when Lattice's global optimizer gets into the act. >- Both compilers now have source level debuggers, both have a choice of 16 or >32 bit ints, both have optional run-time stack checking. Lattice's debugger is bundled, Manx's is $75 extra. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "If it didn't have bones in it, it wouldn't be crunchy now would it?!"
ugdill@marvin.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Peter Dill) (12/12/89)
>In article <4016@vax1.tcd.ie> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes: >- Manx 3.6 is original K&R C. Lattice 5.0 is full ANSI C. > Not true. Manx 3.6 isn't ansi but it isn't just K&R 1 either. It has void, #asm and other stuff. Peter Dill ugdill@cs.buffalo.edu
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (12/21/89)
In the spirit of the discussion on LAttice/Manx .. Ill toss in my $.02
I use that Lattice 5.04 for a LOT of reasons.
1) it is standard (link format that is)
2) closer to UNIX C
3) I use the C++
Besides, a AREXX port on the Source Debugger is a GREAT idea...
****************************************************************************
"Perfume and leather baby , you and me together baby,
what good is living in paradise, if you don't let yourself once or twice."
-Tiffany
Kenneth J. Jamieson ---- THE BOSS at Xanadu Enterprises Inc.
UUCP: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP BEST PATH ---> uunet!tronsbox!tron1
Sysop, The Penthouse ]I[ BBS - (201)759-8450 / (201)759-8568
****************************************************************************qhy@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Tony Hutson) (01/24/90)
Can someone please tell me if there are Pascal or Fortran compilers for the Amiga. Are there some public domain programs? I have looked in several magazines and have traveled to many software stores but I haven't located any PD or commercial compilers. Please respond by e-mail if possible... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Dwayne (Tony) Hutson ++ Phoenix Commodore Computer Group +++ + Vice President ++ BBS (317) 882-7802 24 hrs. +++ + ++ Indianapolis Indiana +++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
cs121jj@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (01/25/90)
I'd like to know about Pascal and Fortran compilers for the Amiga as well... If whomever responds to this could carbon copy me the info as well, I'd appreciate it.