walton@ametek.UUCP (Steve Walton) (12/03/86)
Jeff Gortatowsky writes (about Manx's 3.40 update coming out in January): >This is very disappointing. As part of the incentive for buying the >commercial version of their compiler is a year of free updates, I feel >a bit 'taken'. I bought Manx (directly from them) sometime in the >February/March 1986 time frame. It seems if the above is true, I'll >be darn lucky to just 'squeak in' one update. I'm not directly >flaming Manx.. I understand they had to delay for 1.2. It's just >disappointing. My understanding of the current situation, based on various postings from Jim Goodnow to the WELL, is that ALL current owners of both the commercial ($500) AND developer ($300) package will receive the update free, no matter how long it takes to go out the door. Owners of the commercial package have been (should have been?) receiving beta-test versions of the new release, many of which have been sufficiently bug-free to use for production work. I believe that owners of the commercial package will also receive the next update after the current one free, but call Manx and check. #define FLAME ON #if !defined(SENSITIVE_EYES) As for the Lattice update: Ho, hum, now Lattice gives you what Manx had in its last release, for a mere $75 update fee. For $225, they'll also throw in a Make utility which is 48K long and doesn't have a default .c to .o rule built in (according to the review in Issue #8 of Amazing Computing), as well as a touch program which is 19K long. How many of you have 67K free on your C development disk? The PD make which I just ported to the Amiga (but won't distribute until 1.2 and the new Aztec compiler arrive) is 21K long and has such a built-in rule. The Aztec one is similar. My advice: save your money, sell your Lattice compiler to some poor sucker, and buy 3.40 of Aztec even if it isn't out until January. In-line 68020/68881 code, a make utility, a linker which can detect and use standard Amiga-format object files and libraries, and code which, I'm willing to wager, will still be smaller and faster and quicker to develop than Lattice's even if you use BLINK. If it sounds like I'm down on Lattice, well, I am. Here at work, we have a high-priced license for Lattice's UNIX->MS/DOS cross compiler, Version 3.10 of which is now almost a year late. The last beta version which we received pushed the two words of long constants onto the stack in the wrong order... #endif #undef FLAME_ON Steve Walton ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu My employer disavows any knowledge of my actions.
jdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky) (12/05/86)
Jeff Gortatowsky writes (about Manx's 3.40 update coming out in January): .......... I wrote about my concerns with the 1 year free update policy running out before I ever received an update. Steve Walton ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu writes back: <paraphrased> Manx understands and MAY issue this release PLUS one more to commercial pakage owners. > <then Steve deviates from my subject with this> >#define FLAME ON >#if !defined(SENSITIVE_EYES) > As for the Lattice update: Ho, hum, now Lattice gives you what Manx >had in its last release, for a mere $75 update fee. For $225, they'll >also throw in a Make utility which is 48K long and doesn't have a >default .c to .o rule built in (according to the review in Issue #8 of >Amazing Computing), as well as a touch program which is 19K long. How >many of you have 67K free on your C development disk? The PD make >which I just ported to the Amiga (but won't distribute until 1.2 and >the new Aztec compiler arrive) is 21K long and has such a built-in >rule. The Aztec one is similar. My advice: save your money, sell >your Lattice compiler to some poor sucker, and buy 3.40 of Aztec even >if it isn't out until January. In-line 68020/68881 code, a make >utility, a linker which can detect and use standard Amiga-format object >files and libraries, and code which, I'm willing to wager, will still >be smaller and faster and quicker to develop than Lattice's even if you >use BLINK. If it sounds like I'm down on Lattice, well, I am. Here at >work, we have a high-priced license for Lattice's UNIX->MS/DOS cross >compiler, Version 3.10 of which is now almost a year late. The last >beta version which we received pushed the two words of long constants >onto the stack in the wrong order... >#endif >#undef FLAME_ON > Steve Walton > ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu >My employer disavows any knowledge of my actions. Steve if your flameing me lay off. I did not criticize Manx's compiler (although I've seen better code generators). I like their compiler. I only use Lattice because it's all I've got for 1.2. If you were responing to other notes posted, fine. But you could have used a separate message. One further note. Why must I always call a compiler manufacturer to find out the latest information? Why must it always be *my* dime? In nearly one year I've received NOTHING(!!!) from Manx. I sent my card in. I paid my $500. Why the heck can't they keep me informed? A postcard would do! They (and others) are always nagging, "send in your registration, send in your registration,....". I say WHY? You odviously throw them away. You sure as heck don't use them to help keep me informed of bugs/new products/upgrades/delays/etc. ! Why must I call you (with my darn dime)? And Steve, Lattice may your idea of a compiler nightmare, but they *DO* send me a newletter now and then. Yea, most of it's filled with PeeCee junk. But it does (!!!) contain a list of latest revision levels for their products and informs me of any new ones. So at least there is one thing Lattice does better than Manx.... keep their customers informed. That goes a long ways towards making a small developer think he matters a bit. I can't afford to be on CIS/WELL/BIX/SOURCE/DELPHI/PLINK/GENIE all the damn time! Even if I could, I can't be sure I'll just *happen* to stumble upon someone's message telling me exactly what I needed to know. Ok end of flames. -- Jeff Gortatowsky {allegra,seismo}!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg Eastman Kodak Company <Kodak won't be responsible for the above comments, only those below>
swalton@well.UUCP (12/10/86)
In article <541@elmgate.UUCP> jdg@aurora.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky) writes: > >Jeff Gortatowsky writes (about Manx's 3.40 update coming out in January): > .......... I wrote about my concerns with the 1 year free update > policy running out before I ever received an update. > >Steve Walton ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu writes back: > <paraphrased> Manx understands and MAY issue this release PLUS > one more to commercial pakage owners. > >> <then Steve deviates from my subject with this> > <my flame omitted> >Steve if your flameing me lay off. I did not criticize Manx's compiler >(although I've seen better code generators). I like their compiler. I >only use Lattice because it's all I've got for 1.2. If you were responing to >other notes posted, fine. But you could have used a separate message. > Sorry, I'll try to do better in the future. I've been using my Manx compiler under 1.2 for some time, though. >One further note. Why must I always call a compiler manufacturer to find >out the latest information? Why must it always be *my* dime? In nearly >one year I've received NOTHING(!!!) from Manx. I sent my card in. I >paid my $500. Why the heck can't they keep me informed? A postcard >would do! They (and others) are always nagging, "send in your >registration, send in your registration,....". I say WHY? You >odviously throw them away. You sure as heck don't use them to help keep >me informed of bugs/new products/upgrades/delays/etc. ! Why must I call >you (with my darn dime)? > >And Steve, Lattice may your idea of a compiler nightmare, but they *DO* >send me a newletter now and then. Yea, most of it's filled with PeeCee >junk. But it does (!!!) contain a list of latest revision levels for >their products and informs me of any new ones. > Good points, all. I suggest a letter with these points to Manx, with a follow-up phone call. (I know, your dime again.) If you like, I'll write a similar letter. >Ok end of flames. ditto.
sean@ukma.ms.uky.csnet (Sean Casey) (12/12/86)
In article <541@elmgate.UUCP> jdg@aurora.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky) writes: >One further note. Why must I always call a compiler manufacturer to find >out the latest information? Why must it always be *my* dime? In nearly >one year I've received NOTHING(!!!) from Manx. I sent my card in. I >paid my $500. Why the heck can't they keep me informed? A postcard >would do! I agree that for $500, the least Manx could so is keep it's customers informed instead of guessing. I believe that if you feel the same way, you should write a letter to Manx and let them know. Address it to the president of the company. You might get results! At least you can say that you attempted to let the company know of your grievance. Sean -- =========================================================================== Sean Casey UUCP: cbosgd!ukma!sean CSNET: sean@ms.uky.csnet ARPA: ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNET