hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (11/11/89)
Something else I noticed with MWC 3.0.x - does your library (libc.a) have the difftime() routine? Mine didn't. When I ordered the C source for the library, I noticed that the source file is present but never mentioned anywhere in the makefile. Thus, it never gets compiled, and no such routine gets into your C library. Ooops. So there's an example of a routine that's documented in the manual, but not present in the library. As opposed to all the routines that are in the library, but never documented... -- -=- PrayerMail: Send 100Mbits to holyghost@father.son[127.0.0.1] and You Too can have a Personal Electronic Relationship with God!
sbigham@dukeac.UUCP (Scott Bigham) (11/14/89)
In article <46c13647.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >Has anyone else found any errors in the MWC Version 3.0 manual?? As a matter of fact, yes. The 3.0.5 manual claims that the proper way to call objc_edit() is as follows: int objc_edit(tree,object,character,oldindex,kind,newindex); OBJECT *tree;int object,character,oldindex,kind,*newindex; This is in fact what GEM expects. It is not, however, what the 3.0.5 library expects. The actual call format is: int objc_edit(tree,object,character,index,kind,index); OBJECT *tree;int object,character,*index,kind; where index serves the function of both oldindex and newindex above. By the way, what is the most recent version of MWC? I've heard 3.0.9 and I'm somewhat concerned that Mark Williams hasn't notified me. To my knowledge I'm registered (how might one check that?). sbigham -- Scott Bigham "The opinions expressed above are Internet sbigham@dukeac.ac.duke.edu (c) 1989 Hacker Ltd. and cannot be USENET sbigham@dukeac.UUCP copied or distributed without a ...!mcnc!ecsgate!dukeac!sbigham Darn Good Reason."
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (11/16/89)
In article <1637@dukeac.UUCP>, sbigham@dukeac.UUCP (Scott Bigham) writes: > In article <46c13647.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: > >Has anyone else found any errors in the MWC Version 3.0 manual?? > > > By the way, what is the most recent version of MWC? I've heard 3.0.9 and I'm > somewhat concerned that Mark Williams hasn't notified me. To my knowledge I'm > registered (how might one check that?). > > sbigham Scott, Mark Williams Corp has a toll-free 800 number (which I forgot). But you can call 1-800-555-1212 and ask for Mark Williams Corp in Chicago Ill (or Oak Brook or whereever MWC is at in the Chicago area) and get the 800 number. A couple of months ago I was told that 3.09 is the latest version. It is a shame but Mark Williams Corp is an excellent example of how Atari has destroyed the US ST market. A couple of years ago, when the US ST market still looked good, Mark Williams Corp was one of the first to provide a PROFESSIONAL level tool for the ST. The MWC C compiler is as good as ANY I have used on an IBM PC or a Mac. The MWC C compiler is a real good program. I can't repeat that often enough. sure there are BETTER compilers to other people, but MWC was first. And last year MWC came out with the C Source Code Debugger, which is a definite plus. And this year MWC has sold the source code to the MWC C libraries. But, when I enquired about the availability of an ANSI-compliant C compiler, I was told that the MWC C programmer who wrote the ST version is no longer with MWC. I was then ASKED if I wanted to write the ANSI version of the compiler, on contract to MWC. Well, I am a rehashed hardware engineer and have NEVER Written a compiler or I might have just taken them up on the offer. But, the fact that the offer was made, and that MWC doesn't have an ST programmer assigned to it tells me a lot about the US ST market. If MWC thought that our market was growing I am SURE that we would have seen an ANSI-compliant C compiler from MWC by now. Also, it is telling when a company has to resort to selling the source code to its product to make some money. I mean, you don't see Microsoft selling the source code to their C libraries for $89.95 like MWC has!! I just hope that the US market improves before MWC drops out completely!! MWC has provided me with excellent support, and except for some bugs in their manual, I have learned a lot from the MWC manuals. All in all, I am very pleased with MWC. And very disappointed that the US ST market is so small that MWC hasn't upgraded the ST C compiler to full ANSI C. Richard Covert, Long Live Mark Williams Corp!!
rjk752@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu (11/18/89)
I tried to mail you this, but it gave me the line below 554 covertr@force.uucp... Service unavailable: Inappropriate ioctl for device Since I have mailed to others, I assume I did "the right stuff" at my end. So here goes: ----- Unsent message follows ----- I think most of the people on the net are aware that Atari is handling the marketing/support situation very poorly in the U.S. probably because of their European concentration. Atari is also aware by now of how we feel, if they even read or care about this notesfile anymore with its childish sounding bickering. I accept that you have Atari's interests at heart, and am glad you feel it is worth your time to write the long notes (seriously). However, bringing up MWC'S loss of performance to show that the Atari's market is going down is redundant. We already know, and they know it too. I get to use this net for free, but if I didn't I would probably get upset about downloading all of the repetitive (Atari-bashing) messages at long- distance costs. Some people may not have the extra money to spend. I don't have that much extra time to spend, but it is only slightly irritating to skip them at a couple seconds loss. I purchased Mark William's C also, and would be especially interested in an ANSI compiler which I could use at work. But a brief announcement that MWC ANSI "C" isn't out would probably have been sufficient. This is my opinion, but I think straight facts will recieve warmer attention than (few facts)+(gobs of repeat opinions). That is my official opinion on opinions :) You did make some good points, but please let it rest until there are some hard facts (and then moderate the volume of opinions) BTW, the lines on your messages are too long for most of our screens. They wrap around and leave a lot of blank space on the second line. Please shorten the width of your window to around 75 or (max) 80 characters, or increase them to just below 160 for those of us with standard sized windows. Thanks, Bob Krieter