kuan@iris.ucdavis.edu (Francisco Kuan) (11/29/89)
Isn't it funny that the two best c-compilers on the Amiga are considered to be mediocre (perhaps that's being generous) on IBM's? When's the last time you heard anyone develop something on an IBM using Lattice? Is there any chance of Turbo C being ported to Amigas? I own Aztec, and I don't have too many complaints about it, except the SDB won't let me look at string arrays correctly, and the customer support sucks eggs, as someone pointed out. I also called a few weeks ago asking about an update, and unfortuneately I have my originals hidden so well I couldn't find my reg. #. They wouldn't take the reg # of the SDB, which I did find. No, they wanted my zip code. It makes me wonder what kind of software they use to keep track of customers. Was that software by chance written in house using Aztec C? From the sound of it, you'd think they hired a chimpanzee to write that software in compiled Basic on a Timex Sinclair, which they then ported to an IBM. It's hard to have faith in a company that doesn't even know who its customers are. The reason I chose Aztec in the first place was I called Lattice, and the representative was so incompetent he couldn't answer the simplest questions without looking it up or hollering for his boss: "Uh, Joe, what version are we up to on the Amiga?" You don't get much of a choice if you want a C-compiler on the Amiga. "Damned if you do, but it's still better than getting an IBM, ... I think." - Anyonymous Developer
phorgan@cup.portal.com (Patrick John Horgan) (11/30/89)
>Isn't it funny that the two best c-compilers on the Amiga are >considered to be mediocre (perhaps that's being generous) on IBM's? >When's the last time you heard anyone develop something on an IBM >using Lattice? Well, that may be true, and Lattices compiler is weird for IBM mainframes too, (you have to put include files in maclibs!), but Aztec's ok. It's funny, but Aztec's the compiler of choice for radio amateurs on IBM PCs. I used a copy a year ago, and it was already ANSI compatible. Why it's taking so long on the Amiga, I don't know. I think that Aztec appeals to those of us that like Unix. The user interface of Aztec, and the tools supplied with the compiler are very Unix like. As far as their support for the Unix compiler is concerned...well it needs work. But it could be worse! I bought "The Disk Mechanic" by Lake Forest Logic Inc. It trashed the second partition of my hard disk ( repeatedly, I just couldn't believe it and tried again, and again! ). It turns out that several of the utilities included with it couldn't correctly access the second partition of my hard disk. I sent in my registration card with a letter explaining what happened ( detailing where they thought the root block was as opposed to where C=s format put it). I asked them for help. Two months later, they sent me a letter telling me that if I sent them some more money, they'd send me another version. They didn't even tell me if they figured out the problem or fixed it! Needless to say, I didn't send more good money after bad. I never got a working product for my money in the first place! I'll be da__ned if they hustle more out of me. At least Manx never abused me, and I like their stuff. Patrick Horgan
koren@hpfelg.HP.COM (Steve Koren) (11/30/89)
> When's the last time you heard anyone develop something on an IBM > using Lattice? > Is there any chance of Turbo C being ported to Amigas? I own Aztec, I consider Lattice to be far superior to Turbo C. In fact, both of the Amiga compilers tend to do a better job at compiling software written for Unix than nearly any of the DOS compilers. I have software which compiles correctly under Unix, Lattice, and Manx, but won't under Turbo C or even Microsoft version 5.x. I guess it all depends on what you're trying to do. Turbo C, on the other hand, compiles much faster. [ support problems ] I also have talked to a few Lattice support people who didn't have a clue how to answer my questions. However, Lattice runs a free 24 hr BBS for registered users; the SYSOPS are informed and helpful. This is all IMHO, of course. Lattice and Manx have problems, but so does every other compiler in the world. In spite of their problems, I have been able to develop large applications with both. - steve
sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) (12/02/89)
In Message <6060@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, kuan@iris.ucdavis.edu (Francisco Kuan) writes: >Isn't it funny that the two best c-compilers on the Amiga are >considered to be mediocre (perhaps that's being generous) on IBM's? >When's the last time you heard anyone develop something on an IBM >using Lattice? Hold on just one minute! True early versions of Lattice for MS-DOS were not the best in the market. But their newest version has come a long way. My present employer and I use V4.x of Lattice for MS-DOS and its a great product. We develope software for the airline industry and to me thats a serious business. V4.x has the same editor and debugger like the Amiga version plus more. Not to mention the adds ive seen for V6.0 present a product that should put Lattice on the top of the MS-DOS compiler pile. Sneakers -- ___ Dan "Sneakers" Schein //// BERKS AMIGA BBS Sneakers Computing //// You've tried the rest, now try 2455 McKinley Ave. ___ //// the BEST! 80 Megs of 100% AMIGA West Lawn, PA 19609 \\\\ //// 24 hrs @ 215/678-7691 \\\\//// {pyramid|rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!heimat!sneakers
rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie (12/05/89)
In article <13910005@hpfelg.HP.COM>, koren@hpfelg.HP.COM (Steve Koren) writes: >> When's the last time you heard anyone develop something on an IBM >> using Lattice? > >> Is there any chance of Turbo C being ported to Amigas? I own Aztec, > > I consider Lattice to be far superior to Turbo C. In fact, both of > the Amiga compilers tend to do a better job at compiling software > written for Unix than nearly any of the DOS compilers. I have > software which compiles correctly under Unix, Lattice, and Manx, but won't > under Turbo C or even Microsoft version 5.x. I guess it all depends on > what you're trying to do. Turbo C, on the other hand, compiles much > faster. As far as I'm concerned, Turbo C is VASTLY superior to Aztec or Lattice. Of course, it's also vastly superior to any other compiler on any machine that I know of. Thing is, it's so severely handicapped between the Intel CPU (imagine having to have SIX different versions of the libraries for the 6 different memory models! Or not being able to support 32-bit ints even as an option! And of course a couple of Intuition windows make Turbo C's integrated environment look sick.) and MSDOS that overall the Amiga with Aztec or Lattice is a better development environment than a PC clone with Turbo C. As far as I know there is no chance whatsoever of Turbo C being ported, Borland do only MS-DOS stuff. We'll just have to wait for Aztec and Lattice to evolve to that standard. "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
840445m@aucs.uucp (Alan McKay) (12/07/89)
In article <4017@vax1.tcd.ie> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes: >In article <13910005@hpfelg.HP.COM>, koren@hpfelg.HP.COM (Steve Koren) writes: >> >>> Is there any chance of Turbo C being ported to Amigas? I own Aztec, >> >> I consider Lattice to be far superior to Turbo C. In fact, both of I agree > >As far as I'm concerned, Turbo C is VASTLY superior to Aztec or Lattice. Of ... >having to have SIX different versions of the libraries for the 6 different >memory models! Or not being able to support 32-bit ints even as an option! And >of course a couple of Intuition windows make Turbo C's integrated environment >look sick.) and MSDOS that overall the Amiga with Aztec or Lattice is a better >development environment than a PC clone with Turbo C. You seem to contradict yourself here. It is superior but not as good. I think the integrated environment and speed of compile of Turbo make it very, very attractive on the surface, but if you look inside it is not as good. > >As far as I know there is no chance whatsoever of Turbo C being ported, Borland >do only MS-DOS stuff. We'll just have to wait for Aztec and Lattice to evolve >to that standard. > Actually, they also do MacIntosh as well, so I am optimistic that they will wake up some day and do the port. >"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 +
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (12/07/89)
in article <4017@vax1.tcd.ie>, rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie says: >> I consider Lattice to be far superior to Turbo C. In fact, both of >> the Amiga compilers tend to do a better job at compiling software >> written for Unix than nearly any of the DOS compilers. > As far as I'm concerned, Turbo C is VASTLY superior to Aztec or Lattice. Of > course, it's also vastly superior to any other compiler on any machine that I > know of. You're probably both correct, for different reasons. Lattice C is very ANSI, produces good code, and seems to do a great job on System V UNIX code. Manx is very fast for a non-resident compiler, produces moderat quality code, and seems better at compiling BSD UNIX stuff. Turbo C I'm not so familiar with, but if it's like other Borland products, it's reasonably priced, produces moderate quality code, and has an intergrated environment that many folks swear by. I suspect if you like the integrated environment, you're going to think Turbo C is the greatest thing since sliced bread. If you're a UNIX hacker, you'll probably favor Lattice or Manx. Everyone has their own set of preferences. Of course, to the CED user, you already have at least one integrated environment for Lattice development if you have AREXX, thanks to Peter Cherna's DevKit stuff. Which is a good indication of the way things are going on the Amiga. If you love Borland's integrated package, you get along with it and think all else is inferior. But editors can be a _very_ personal matter, and the wrong text editor will hamper your performance, despite how great other people think it is. On the Amiga, fortunately, you won't be locked into any integrated environment as long as the separate pieces use AREXX to glue things together. For Peter's system, I could adopt the AREXX glue to a version of Emacs or VI that speaks AREXX and get the same capabilities he's given the CED user. > "To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem" -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
840445m@aucs.uucp (Alan McKay) (12/08/89)
In article <8858@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: > >Of course, to the CED user, you already have at least one integrated >environment for Lattice development if you have AREXX, thanks to Peter >Cherna's DevKit stuff. Which is a good indication of the way things are >going on the Amiga. If you love Borland's integrated package, you get >along with it and think all else is inferior. But editors can be a _very_ >personal matter, and the wrong text editor will hamper your performance, >despite how great other people think it is. On the Amiga, fortunately, you >won't be locked into any integrated environment as long as the separate >pieces use AREXX to glue things together. For Peter's system, I could >adopt the AREXX glue to a version of Emacs or VI that speaks AREXX and get >the same capabilities he's given the CED user. > >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" Am I correct to understand from this that somehow I can use AREXX to glue Lattice to whatever editor I want? Could someone please send me more info on this? -- + 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 +
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (12/08/89)
In article <8858@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: |despite how great other people think it is. On the Amiga, fortunately, you |won't be locked into any integrated environment as long as the separate |pieces use AREXX to glue things together. For Peter's system, I could |adopt the AREXX glue to a version of Emacs or VI that speaks AREXX and get |the same capabilities he's given the CED user. Thanks, Dave, for making this point. "Rolling your own" with ARexx is *really* a nice idea, and I think it will be quite a while before all thr permutations of it are explored. Rexx comes from the IBM mainframe environment originally, but it is a bigger concept than that. I'm impressed with the Amiga community for being able to absorb & utilize such things - the synergy of the hardware and software is pretty amazing... Cheers, -- ^^ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \**/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _/ >_ "Modern Businessmen believe in Christiannuity" - Pres. George Bosch
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (12/09/89)
In <1287@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes: > Thanks, Dave, for making this point. "Rolling > your own" with ARexx is *really* a nice idea, > and I think it will be quite a while before all > thr permutations of it are explored. Rexx comes > from the IBM mainframe environment originally, > but it is a bigger concept than that. I'm impressed > with the Amiga community for being able to absorb > & utilize such things - the synergy of the hardware > and software is pretty amazing... Because I am so outspoken about my computer of choice, and about how bad the Big Blue Blight really is, I am often accused of being biased automatically against anything IBM or near-IBM. When I rail against integrated environments in such things as compilers, the IBM types within earshot figure it's sour grapes beause I don't have Turbo Pascal or Turbo C or Turbo APL or whatever. What they can't seem to understand is that on their machines, an integreated environment for a compiler is necessary in order to get the benefits of ease of use, while on the Amiga it is not only unnecessary, but counter-productive and needlessly restrictive. VM/CMS users know all about the benefits of REXX and multitasking; after all, it was the users of that OS that made REXX what it is today, by popular demand, something which IBM generally tries to ignore until it is sufficiently profitable to take notice of it. Someday those in the IBM PC camp will know all about the benefits too, and their tune will change. I have several products that provide an integrated editor... HiSoft Basic, Hisoft DevPac Amiga, Benchmark Modula-2, C.A.P.E., and probably a few more. In all cases, the editor supplied is not a bad editor, but is not even close to my favourite in the ways that are important to me. Resukt? I run each and every one of those packages from the CLI, editing with CEDPro, and writing such tools as I need, at the time I feel the need for them. I realize that the I am preaching to the choir here, having responded to someone who agrees with me, but it was a place to hang this on. -larry -- " All I ask of my body is that it carry around my head." - Thomas Alva Edison - +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
wally@pallas.UUCP (Wally Hartshorn) (12/10/89)
In article <13910005@hpfelg.HP.COM> koren@hpfelg.HP.COM (Steve Koren) writes: >I also have talked to a few Lattice support people who didn't have a >clue how to answer my questions. However, Lattice runs a free 24 hr BBS >for registered users; the SYSOPS are informed and helpful. For the record, Manx also has a support BBS, or did the last time I called. (The changed to a new type of BBS software that I found impossible to use effectively, so I haven't called in quite some time. Now that v5.0 is supposed to be out soon, I'll probably be giving a call. Hopefully they've changed BBS software by now.) -- Wally (uunet!pallas!wally or wally@athenanet.com) "Student signature -- Stand clear."
phorgan@cup.portal.com (Patrick John Horgan) (12/11/89)
[Eat THIS] Well, Wally (uunet!pallas!wally or wally@athenanet.com) remarked, For the record, Manx also has a support BBS, or did the last time I called. (The changed to a new type of BBS software that I found impossible to use effectively, so I haven't called in quite some time. Now that v5.0 is supposed to be out soon, I'll probably be giving a call. Hopefully they've changed BBS software by now.) Well, Wally, the bulletin board is still there @ (201)542-2793. The sysop, Mike Spille, runs the board well, and is very responsive...One nice thing is a bulletin you can access when you log in that tells you the current version numbers. There's a file area which usually has some broken software someone needs help with. When you call, if someone needs help with something YOU'RE an expert on, don't be shy about replying to the message. I find the board easy to use. If you need help, Mike will reply to your message promptly. One thing, if you haven't called before, make sure you have the Serial number of your registered Manx software available. The first time on leave a comment to the Sysop detailing the software owned, it's serial number, and your name and address. Also on the board, you'll find the Compuserve and bix addresses to use for help. Hope this helps. (Oh by the way, Manx had this first!) (Only wishes he worked at Manx) Patrick Horgan (phorgan@cup.portal.com)
keithh@atreus.uucp (Keith Hanlan) (12/12/89)
In article <1989Dec6.203947.2366@aucs.uucp> 840445m@aucs.UUCP (Alan McKay) writes: >In article <4017@vax1.tcd.ie> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes: >> >>As far as I know there is no chance whatsoever of Turbo C being ported, Borland >>do only MS-DOS stuff. We'll just have to wait for Aztec and Lattice to evolve >>to that standard. >> >Actually, they also do MacIntosh as well, so I am optimistic that they will >wake up some day and do the port. Hi Alan. Shouldn't you be studying for exams? :-) It's been a while since I've heard this but the story I heard is that Borland actually did a lot of the port but shelved it when CBM pissed them off. Is there any truth to this? Keith Hanlan Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada 613-765-4645 uunet!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bmers58!atreus!keithh or keithh@bnr.ca
rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) (12/14/89)
In article <610@bmers58.UUCP< keithh@atreus.UUCP (Keith Hanlan) writes: <In article 840445m@aucs.UUCP (Alan McKay) writes: <>In article <4017@vax1.tcd.ie> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes: <>> <>>... there is no chance whatsoever of Turbo C being ported, Borland <>>do only MS-DOS stuff. <>> <>Actually, they also do MacIntosh as well, so I am optimistic that they will <>wake up some day and do the port. < < It's been a while since I've heard this but the story I heard is < that Borland actually did a lot of the port but shelved it when CBM < pissed them off. Is there any truth to this? According to a rumor that I read in Creative Computing (anybody here remember Creative Computing?), Turbo Pascal was supposed to be the OFFICIAL Pascal for the Amiga. Of course, that article was written a LONG time ago (well before the Amiga's release, and well before comp.sys.amiga began). It may have even been before the deal with MetaCompCo (who supplied "Amiga Pascal", back in the old days). Maybe Commodore pissed Borland off by getting their "official" Pascal from MetaCompCo. If so (and if they didn't HAVE to do it to get the DOS), I think that they made a BIG mistake. Turbo Pascal/C/etc. for the Amiga would be good to have, even if just to let the PC Clone people see that we have 'real' software, too. <Keith Hanlan <Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada 613-765-4645 <uunet!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bmers58!atreus!keithh or keithh@bnr.ca Rodney Ricks -- "We may have come over here in different ships, but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson // \\ // Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College \/
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (12/14/89)
In <1989Dec8.020928.25626@aucs.uucp>, 840445m@aucs.uucp (Alan McKay) writes: >Am I correct to understand from this that somehow I can use AREXX to glue >Lattice to whatever editor I want? Could someone please send me more info >on this? Well, perhaps not all editors.. or more correctly, some editors are more amenable to being part of a custom integration than others. The Editors that come to mind that are exceptional for this purpose are CEDPro, TxEd, and UEdit. DME has an ARexx interface, but I am unfamiliar with the scope of it, so can't comment much. The editor I am most familiar with is CEDPro, having been a tester for it since it was still in its infancy as a shareware program. It features full control of the editor by ARexx programs that are callable from within the editor (or from outside). Virtually anything that can be done from the keyboard can also be done from an ARexx program, and that ARexx program can be called from a function key or menu selection, in the first release version, and from _any_ key in the soon-to-be-released CEDPro 2.0. What this means from an integration point of view is that a single keystroke can call an ARexx program that can do anything to or with any file. A simple example might be compiling from within your editor... . The function key calls the script... . The script calls the compiler, directing errors to a file, either through a command line switch or by redirection of stdout to a temporary file, or best of all, through piping the output through execio, a dandy little utility that comes with WShell (also by Bill Hawes, the author of ARexx), and directly to a stem variable within the script. . The script then looks at the resulting file or set of variables, parsing to see if there were any errors. . If there were errors, the script can open a new view (window) in CEDPro, dump a formatted copy of the first error message into it, and position the cursor on the line in error in the source view, at the position indicated by the error file. . If there were no errors, it can just tell you that, or perhaps you might want to push the CEDPro screen to the back and put you in a position to easily run the program to test. The obvious benefits of this sort of versatility are hard to ignore, yet they pale in comparison to the other things you can do with the combination that are a great help to virtually any task you need the editor for. Recently, a package of ARexx and executable programs came over the net, called DevKit. This package provides such things as autodoc lookup by simply hitting a key when the cursor is over the system call you just typed in.. another window opens up and shows you the call, complete, exactly as it appears in the autodocs. Include file tags and tags from your own code can be indexed and made to appear with a keypress. I have scripts that let me delete files, read news with 'keep' or 'discard' functionality, reply to articles, post originals, or post email. I can delete files, load a directory into a view, and so on.. all from within the editor. While most programs do not have an ARexx port, many of them can be made to serve an ARexx program indirectly by just running them and getting their output in a number of ways. Programs that do have an ARexx port are just begging to be glued to others that also have one. When 1.4 arrives I expect to see a great clamour for ARexx-capable programs, since it will be bundled with the system. -larry -- " All I ask of my body is that it carry around my head." - Thomas Alva Edison - +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
prem@geomag.fsu.edu (Prem Subrahmanyam) (12/15/89)
Actually, for all those Turbo C buffs, Lattice 5.0x provides an integrated
environment, where you CAN evoke the compiler while editing a program.
Of course, you'll need a lot more than 512K to get by with this.
---Prem S.ekins@ingr.com (Brian Ekins) (12/15/89)
In article <32343@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: >According to a rumor that I read in Creative Computing (anybody here remember >Creative Computing?), Turbo Pascal was supposed to be the OFFICIAL Pascal for >the Amiga. If you go back and look in the premier issue of Amiga World there is a full page add for Turbo Pascal. Too bad it didn't follow through.
pepers@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bradley Pepers) (12/16/89)
I have been working on a Turbo Pascal compatible compiler for the Amiga and
its getting to the point where its compiling a fairly large subset. So you
should be seeing Amiga Turbo Pascal (compatible!!) in the future!
Brad Pepersifarqhar@mqccsunc.mqcc.mq.OZ (Ian Farquhar) (12/18/89)
In article <32343@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: >In article <610@bmers58.UUCP< keithh@atreus.UUCP (Keith Hanlan) writes: ><In article 840445m@aucs.UUCP (Alan McKay) writes: ><>In article <4017@vax1.tcd.ie> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes: ><>> ><>>... there is no chance whatsoever of Turbo C being ported, Borland ><>>do only MS-DOS stuff. ><>> ><>Actually, they also do MacIntosh as well, so I am optimistic that they will ><>wake up some day and do the port. >< >< It's been a while since I've heard this but the story I heard is >< that Borland actually did a lot of the port but shelved it when CBM >< pissed them off. Is there any truth to this? > Interesting, that is one rumor that I had not heard, and I thought that I'd heard them all. Anyway, many people may recall that the original AmigaWorld (Issue one, I think) carried an article for Amiga Turbo Pascal, coming soon. Now, I don't know about US consumer law, but under the Australian Trade Practices Act this is misrepresentation, and an offense (ie. false advertising). Are there any legal people out there willing to comment on the US situation? I strongly suspect that there would be similar consumer protection laws operating over there. And if so... perhaps somebody should tell Borland. Disclaimer: "My opinions are my own!" Ian Farquhar Macquarie University Sydney, Australia. D