[comp.sys.atari.st] C

drs@bnl.ARPA (David R. Stampf) (01/28/88)

In porting (or trying to port) software from the world to the ST I've run into
three major roadblocks.

	1) Operating system dependencies

	2) Variable names lengths >> 8 characters

	3) enum data type.

I have the original Megamax C and while I can deal with the first problem, the
second and third are a pain for any real programs (postscript interpretors,
smalltalk etc.)  Has the new version of Megamax addressed these problems?
Does any C compiler today offer the speed of Megamax with those problems
solved?

	Thanks

	< dave stampf

wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (02/04/88)

In article <321@bnl.ARPA>, drs@bnl.ARPA (David R. Stampf) writes:
> Does any C compiler today offer the speed of Megamax with those problems
> solved?

Try Mark Williams C.  It has long variable names and enums as well as
structure passing, large arrays and functions, and accurate floating
point.  If you put MWC's /lib and /tmp directories on a ram disk
(needs 1 meg to do this) the compile times are close to MegaMax.  And
the new (version 2.1.7) manual from MWC is one of the better resources
for programming on GEMDOS/TOS that I've seen.

NOTE: I am a beta-tester for MWC, so my opinions are somewhat biased.
I became a beta-tester for them AFTER buying 3 other C compilers for
the ST and getting burned every time (including MegaMax).

-- 
	{backbones}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes

	"Against Stupidity, The Gods Themselves Contend in Vain."
							-- Asimov

darling@cellar.UUCP (Darling) (04/30/91)

Allright, I'm finally going to take the plunge and start programming in C on 
my Atari ST (the ol' IBM has outlived its usefulness).  Out of the three 
compilers readily available to me where I work...
 
   Sozobon
   Gnu
   Mark Williams
 
...does anyone want to recommend the best choice to start with?  I'm already 
quick with the language; I'm looking for ease of use, speed, and reliability.

 !! \    __  __  __   ____ __  _  ___     !!  Production, Pre-Production,
 !!  \  //! ! \\ !!    !!  !\\ ! // \\    !! and dance remixing @ FACT HQ:
 !!  / //_! !_// !!    !!  ! \\! !  __    !!      darling@cellar.uucp
 !!_/ //  ! ! \\ !!__ _!!_ !  \! \\_!!    !!_______________________________

andy@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Andy Gray) (04/30/91)

In article <5553@wucc.waseda.ac.jp> ytsuji@wucc.waseda.ac.jp (Y.Tsuji) writes:
>name          memory required   source code   price      source level debug.
>GNU C         2 MB minimum       yes          nil        poor for ST
>Sozobon C     little             yes          nil        I dunnah
>MW C          little             no           ??         yes
>Prospero C    little             for libc.a?  ??         yes
>Turbo C       ??                 ??           ??         ??
>
>Turbo C is reputed to be the best for Atari ST. Prospero is cheaper than
>MW C combined with the source level debugger. GNU C is the only option if
>you have a SUN or VAX at hand.

Don't forget about Laser C.  To add to your chart:

 Laser C       512K okay;         no           ~$120US    yes
               more better

Laser C is a very quick compiler, and generates pretty good code, although I
don't think it's quite as compact as MWC.  A pretty good integrated
environment (graphical shell) is included, as are RCS, make, and other
Unix-style utilities.  Documentation is generally good.

					-- Andy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Andy Gray                     andy@jarthur.claremont.edu
      Platt Campus Center           andy@jarthur.UUCP
      Harvey Mudd College           ...uunet!jarthur!andy
      Claremont, CA  91711          agray@HMCVAX.BITNET

gaertner@tertius.in-berlin.de (05/01/91)

In article <5553@wucc.waseda.ac.jp>, ytsuji@wucc.waseda.ac.jp (Y.Tsuji) writes:
> name          memory required   source code   price      source level debug.
> GNU C         2 MB minimum       yes          nil        poor for ST
> Sozobon C     little             yes          nil        I dunnah
> MW C          little             no           ??         yes
> Prospero C    little             for libc.a?  ??         yes
> Turbo C       ??                 ??           ??         ??
> 
> Turbo C is reputed to be the best for Atari ST. Prospero is cheaper than
> MW C combined with the source level debugger. GNU C is the only option if
> you have a SUN or VAX at hand.


 Prospero C  also implements ANSI C, which like all Prospero languages work
 on other systems (tested with C, Pascal, Fortran on a VAX) when you're re-
 stricting yourself to the standards.
 Additional features: GEM integrated, library manager, mixed language support
                      (important for numerical algorithms using Fortran libs),
                      good documentation
   optional features: cheap coprocessor libraries available (so you can build
                      3 versions of a program), developers toolkit available
                      (with some minor goodies like a command shell and a
                      Make-utility)

 Ralf

---

  Ralf Gaertner                       gaertner@venus.rz-berlin.mpg.de
  FHI Berlin

gaudreau@juggler.East.Sun.COM (Joe Gaudreau (Dances with PostScript)) (05/01/91)

gaertner@tertius.in-berlin.de writes:
=In article, ytsuji@wucc.waseda.ac.jp (Y.Tsuji) writes:
=> name          memory required   source code   price      source level debug.
=> GNU C         2 MB minimum       yes          nil        poor for ST
=> Sozobon C     little             yes          nil        I dunnah
=> MW C          little             no           ??         yes
=> Prospero C    little             for libc.a?  ??         yes
=> Turbo C       ??                 ??           ??         ??
=> 
=> Turbo C is reputed to be the best for Atari ST. Prospero is cheaper than
=> MW C combined with the source level debugger. GNU C is the only option if
=> you have a SUN or VAX at hand.
=
= Prospero C  also implements ANSI C, which like all Prospero languages work
= on other systems (tested with C, Pascal, Fortran on a VAX) when you're re-
= stricting yourself to the standards.
= Additional features: GEM integrated, library manager, mixed language support
=                      (important for numerical algorithms using Fortran libs),
=                      good documentation
=   optional features: cheap coprocessor libraries available (so you can build
=                      3 versions of a program), developers toolkit available
=                      (with some minor goodies like a command shell and a
=                      Make-utility)

Turbo-C should work with 512k but works quite well with 4meg :-)  I use
it with a Mega4/Ste (as does Gregory).  The "Pro" package sells for
around US $275, details:
    o Memory: .5 or more meg RAM.
    o Latest version is 2.0[1] (I think).
    o Source level debugger.
    o CPP type preprocessor.
    o Assembler.
    o Full GEM/AES/VDI libs, floating copro libs, Borland graphics libs,
      BCD libs?.
    o Integrated development environment just like PC's (ie editor, one
      button compile, link, [run]).  Really fast.
    o Docs in German of course - I "hear" this is changing but we'll see.

I use it from the command line, with a shell (currently Gulam, Master real
soon now), Emacs, and Gnu Make.  Very versatile environment.

Look for Borland C++ sooner or later - The rumor line says this is hot!

Joe
-=-

-- 
/Joe-Gaudreau {ps-hacker c[++]^2 juggler add add nice-guy mul} bind def
Fone:  (508)671-0461
INet:  gaudreau@East.Sun.Com
UUCP:  sun!suneast!gaudreau
Snail: Sun Microsystems Inc - BDC, 2 Federal St, Billerica, MA  01821
The opinions I juggle may not be mine, but they aren't my employer's either.
"If you're funky and you know it, shake your butt."

la_carle@sol.brispoly.ac.uk (Les Carleton) (05/01/91)

Is this version of Turbo C available in the UK? Borland only seem to
know about the PC versions of their products. Does it look and feel
like the PC version?

Nobody's mentioned Lattice C (v5) yet ... I suppose thats just as well!

...Les...
"ST owner marooned in a sea of PC's"
--
+---------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Les Carleton              | la_carle@uk.ac.brispoly.cv (JANET)            |
| MCI#4 Bristol Polytechnic | "My Life - My Opinions - ALL MINE!!!"         |
| Brissle, England          | "You're Tuned to Metropolis ... 109.1FM"      |
| la_carle@uk.ac.brispoly.cv| "UNIX troubleshooter"                         |
+---------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

klamer@mi.eltn.utwente.nl (Klamer Schutte) (05/02/91)

In <5838@eastapps.East.Sun.COM> gaudreau@juggler.East.Sun.COM (Joe Gaudreau (Dances with PostScript)) writes:

>Look for Borland C++ sooner or later - The rumor line says this is hot!

Has anybody run this for the ST??? I will be >>very<< interested!
(How about this deal: I get the program, and i will translate the docs ???)
(Assuming docs are still in german.)

Klamer
-- 
Klamer Schutte
Faculty of electrical engineering -- University of Twente, The Netherlands
klamer@mi.eltn.utwente.nl	{backbone}!mcsun!mi.eltn.utwente.nl!klamer

ytsuji@wucc.waseda.ac.jp (Y.Tsuji) (05/04/91)

Mr Chris Wood has actually e-mailed to me saying Lattice C has a good
source level debugger(woocm@sx.ac.uk). It seems everyone is satisfied 
with their C compilers except Alcyon. And to be complete one must not
forget MINIX-ST 's C compiler(pretty awful). Someone has just written
here that he couldn't compile his code because of lack of 030 and
discontinued a support for ATARI. Very sad news. (I thought Turbo C
supported everything).
Though its source level debugger for ST is far from perfect, GNU C is 
by far the
best compiler for us (the price you pay for it is the cost of adding your
memory up to 4MB). And if you happned to have access to a more powerful
machine (preferably 680x0 machines like SUN3), support for TT030 and
source level debugging are no problems. If not, and if one likes to have
expert aid, one cannot tell which is the best. But it is very nice that
there are some at all.
I don't care for speed because nothing is more of a wast of time than
having a buggy compiler. And assembly language level debugging is surely
most reliable if not very efficient.