FCTY7284@RYERSON.BITNET ("Hiscocks, Peter") (01/17/90)
Not to start a flame war, but would someone care to comment on the relative
merits of Laser C and Mark Williams? I'd like to use the C compiler not only
for program development on the ST, but also as a cross development tool for
68000 single board computers. I would expect Mark Williams can do this, being
closely related to Unix, but can Laser C?
The ad on the box for Laser C promises fast compile times, but there's often
a lot more to the story than the stuff on the box....
Thanks for the help.
Peterswklassen@tiger.waterloo.edu (Steven W. Klassen) (01/18/90)
In article <90Jan16.201856est.57892@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> FCTY7284@RYERSON.BITNET ("Hiscocks, Peter") writes: >Not to start a flame war, but would someone care to comment on the relative > merits of Laser C and Mark Williams? I'd like to use the C compiler not only > for program development on the ST, but also as a cross development tool for > 68000 single board computers. I would expect Mark Williams can do this, being > closely related to Unix, but can Laser C? >The ad on the box for Laser C promises fast compile times, but there's often > a lot more to the story than the stuff on the box.... > Thanks for the help. > Peter Although I haven't had any significant usage of Laser, I have used MWC extensivly and have been very pleased with it. My understanding (from other people's benchmarks) is that Laser compiles faster than MWC but the final code from MWC runs faster. I can't confirm or deny this myself (I believe the benchmarks were in an ST-Log or Start or some other magazine.) One thing I can say for sure, MWC has some of the best reference docs I have ever seen. (Although they may be confusing if you don't already know C and want a tutorial.) Steven W. Klassen Computer Science Major University of Waterloo