cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (07/20/88)
In article <60482@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >This is something to consider folks when considering a C compiler. MOST >of the ROM KERNEL MANUAL and INTUITION MANUAL examples will not work with >the MANX compiler. They *assume* 32 bit integers and MANX defaults to using >16 bit integers. Unfair! "Will not work" is a harsh way to put it, when ALL you have to do to defeat Manx's 16-bit integer default is to compile with the "+L" option. >Lattice will save your butt more often than not by pointing out problems >in function parameters and return values. That's nice as far as it goes. But you've left out one BIG advantage for Manx: the availability (for extra $ of course) of SDB (source-level debugger). SDB is great for saving the butts of novice and pro alike. Unless I've been asleep, Lattice doesn't have an SDB yet, and if you believe it's coming "real soon now", well, it's your time and money. -- Charles Poirier (decvax,ucbvax,mcnc,attmail)!vax135!cjp "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..."
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (07/21/88)
In article <60482@sun.uucp> I wrote : ->This is something to consider folks when considering a C compiler. MOST ->of the ROM KERNEL MANUAL and INTUITION MANUAL examples will not work with ->the MANX compiler. They *assume* 32 bit integers and MANX defaults to using ->16 bit integers. In article <2343@antique.UUCP> vax135!cjp (Charles Poirier) commented: ->Unfair! "Will not work" is a harsh way to put it, when ALL you have to ->do to defeat Manx's 16-bit integer default is to compile with the "+L" ->option. Hmmm, in an attempt to avoid religious battles, allow me to enumerate the most common problems that new programmers to the Amiga encounter. (in order of most commonness) : # 1 : The library base variables are declared incorrectly, either in spelling, or with improper case. # 2 : The MANX C compiler is used without the +L option. # 3 : The order of the libraries is reversed when linking Lattice objects (Amiga.lib+LC.lib versus lc.lib+amiga.lib) # 4 : Something that needs to be in CHIP ram isn't there. # 5 : The stack is set to low when the program is run. These are generally discovered by people who have programmed before eventually but they are sometimes insurmountable problems to complete novices. Then Charles Continues ... -> That's nice as far as it goes. But you've left out one BIG advantage -> for Manx: the availability (for extra $ of course) of SDB (source-level -> debugger). SDB is great for saving the butts of novice and pro alike. -> Unless I've been asleep, Lattice doesn't have an SDB yet, and if you -> believe it's coming "real soon now", well, it's your time and money. I was trying to point out a specific instance where the two compilers differ and how one might go about evaluating them for oneself based on this information. SDB is a very nice debugger and can in itself be the justification to *some* people in deciding on one compiler or another. Other people put more emphasis on different things. [I can imagine that an Ex-PASCAL programmer might appreciate the type checking more, for instance] In either event, Lattice claims they will be showing their debugger at AmiExpo in Chicago. If anyone sees it, I for one would like a full report on it, preferably in comparison to SDB and CodeView (dbxtool too if you know what that is). --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Geary) (07/22/88)
In article <2343@antique.UUCP>, cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: > In article <60482@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: > >Lattice will save your butt more often than not by pointing out problems > >in function parameters and return values. > > That's nice as far as it goes. But you've left out one BIG advantage > for Manx: the availability (for extra $ of course) of SDB (source-level > debugger). SDB is great for saving the butts of novice and pro alike. > Unless I've been asleep, Lattice doesn't have an SDB yet, and if you > believe it's coming "real soon now", well, it's your time and money. > This is an important point. I think that the Lattice and Manx compilers are close enough in performance that the *average* C programmer will not really notice much difference in the actual compilers. Since the compilers are so close in compilation speed, executable code size, etc., if I were buying one or the other, I'd look at *what else* I could get with the compiler. That choice is easier, because you get to decide between two products that do different things - SDB or C++. SDB's are great - I use dbxtool a lot at work. Not only is an SDB a great bug killing tool, but stepping through code one line at a time, and having the freedom to examine/display/watch/etc. variables at any time gives one a much better understanding of how the program is actually running. Personally, though, I'd go with Lattice, only because I want to be the first kid on my block to learn C++. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ David Geary, Boeing Aerospace, ~ ~ Seattle - "THE DRIZZLE CAPITAL OF THE WORLD" ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) (11/22/88)
In article <1012@oswego.Oswego.EDU> newton@rocky.oswego.edu (Eric Newton) writes: > I want to do all (or most) of my character I/O through > stdio routines, but through a window created by a program > run from the CLI. I need to get characters one at a time > without newline buffering (cbreak mode, for UNIX folks). > I will need to position the cursor at whole character > positions. Sounds like you want to do fp=fopen("RAW:", "w+"); see the AmigaDos manual section on RAW:. -- -=] Ford [=- "The number of Unix installations (In Real Life: Mike Ditto) has grown to 10, with more expected." ford@kenobi.cts.com - The Unix Programmer's Manual, ...!sdcsvax!crash!elgar!ford 2nd Edition, June, 1972. ditto@cbmvax.commodore.com