-Pete-@cup.portal.com (01/19/88)
This is off of the 64, but it is related..I have seen Super C from Abacus
out for the C64, but was wondering if there is a C compiler for the C128
currently available? Any help would be appreciated..
Thanks,
Pete Cookelg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (01/21/88)
in article <2559@cup.portal.com>, -Pete-@cup.portal.com says: > This is off of the 64, but it is related..I have seen Super C from Abacus > out for the C64, but was wondering if there is a C compiler for the C128 > currently available? Any help would be appreciated.. Abacr*p probably has a "C" for the C128. But so far, the best "C" I've found for a Commodore computer is C-Power/128 (marketed as "Power C" by Spinnaker/Better Working). I had to special-order mine at a local software store (it costed $34.95, after the standard discount), but if you're in a larger city, you can probably get it locally.... -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
lcs@remus.rutgers.edu (Lyle C. Seplowitz) (09/30/90)
There was a message posted here about Super C and Power C. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate Power C via mail order companies. If you know of where it can be located please post a message. I also, unfortunately, own Super C 128. I cannot recommend that program because it fails in many ways from being a real compiler. The other person was correct, Super C 128 cannot create code that runs indenpendent of the supplied shell (rendering it worthless). However, the C64 version can (a complete contradiction). I have spoken with some people at Abacus and written a few letters, one just recently. However, so far I haven't had any luck in having them modify their compiler. My suggestion is to avoid any Abacus products for any computer. While the people are nice and willing to help answer questions, the company's products aren't worth the money. If you are really interested in programming in C for the 128 try CP/M mode. There are numerous compilers available, although I'm not familiar enough with this area to provide reliable information. Maybe someone can provide more information?
piskacrj@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert J Piskac) (09/30/90)
In article <Sep.29.16.24.18.1990.473@remus.rutgers.edu>, lcs@remus.rutgers.edu (Lyle C. Seplowitz) writes: > > There was a message posted here about Super C and Power C. > Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate Power C via mail order > companies. If you know of where it can be located please post a > message. > > I also, unfortunately, own Super C 128. I cannot recommend that > program because it fails in many ways from being a real compiler. The > other person was correct, Super C 128 cannot create code that runs > indenpendent of the supplied shell (rendering it worthless). However, > the C64 version can (a complete contradiction). > Do you feel this is a fair statement? Commodore no longer sells the C= 128. Why should Abacus put further money in a product that is limited in sales. If you are that great programmer and critic that you think you are, make the changes to the program yourself. Why is it worthless? Don't you know how to run programs that you compiled in the shell? Or is it that you don't like having to load the shell to run a program. Abacus will let you copy the shell to other disk's. All you have to do is set the autoexec file to load and run the program and anyone can run the program. You have not proved your claim that Abucus Software is not worth its money. Bob Piskac piskacrj@mentor.cc.purdue.edu My mom won't let me have a .sig.
lockemer@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (10/01/90)
In article <14581@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, piskacrj@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert J Piskac) writes: > In article <Sep.29.16.24.18.1990.473@remus.rutgers.edu>, lcs@remus.rutgers.edu (Lyle C. Seplowitz) writes: >> >> There was a message posted here about Super C and Power C. >> Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate Power C via mail order >> companies. If you know of where it can be located please post a >> message. >> >> I also, unfortunately, own Super C 128. I cannot recommend that >> program because it fails in many ways from being a real compiler. The >> other person was correct, Super C 128 cannot create code that runs >> indenpendent of the supplied shell (rendering it worthless). However, >> the C64 version can (a complete contradiction). >> > > Do you feel this is a fair statement? Commodore no longer sells the > C= 128. Why should Abacus put further money in a product that is > limited in sales. > > If you are that great programmer and critic that you think you > are, make the changes to the program yourself. Why is it worthless? > Don't you know how to run programs that you compiled in the shell? > Or is it that you don't like having to load the shell to run a > program. Abacus will let you copy the shell to other disk's. All > you have to do is set the autoexec file to load and run the program > and anyone can run the program. > > You have not proved your claim that Abucus Software is not worth > its money. Well, I posted the original message refered to above, and though I won't claim that Abucus Software is not worth its money, I will claim that Super C 128 is not. The fact that it is limited to the shell is very significant. Power C allows machine language subroutine calls, relative file accessing, and you can limit a program to a specific area in memory; three things I was unable to do with Super C 128 as a result of its limitation to the shell environment. Also, anyone who has a hard drive for the 128 will find that you cannot run Super C 128 on it since you must use its own specially formatted diskettes. Super C is fine if all you want is to do basic C programming and don't mind disk swapping. But for greater flexibility, Power C outshines Super C; no contest. Todd Lockemer > > Bob Piskac > piskacrj@mentor.cc.purdue.edu > > My mom won't let me have a .sig.
piskacrj@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert J Piskac) (10/02/90)
> Well, I posted the original message refered to above, and though I won't claim > that Abucus Software is not worth its money, I will claim that Super C 128 is > But for greater flexibility, Power C outshines Super C; no contest. > > Todd Lockemer First of all we are not comparing Super C to Power C. You said that Abucus Software was not worth the money, not just Super C. I can program anything in Power C and Super C. Both are good products. And I own both. The only limitation on either products is the users mind. Super C does need a 1581 disk drive to avoid disk swapping. Robert Piskac
lcs@remus.rutgers.edu (Lyle C. Seplowitz) (10/02/90)
From piskacrj@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert J Piskac) Sat Sep 29 18:21:51 1990 In reference to article <Sep.29.16.24.18.1990.473@remus.rutgers.edu>, lcs@remus.rutgers.edu (Lyle C. Seplowitz) >Do you feel this is a fair statement? Commodore no longer sells the >C= 128. Why should Abacus put further money in a product that is >limited in sales. >If you are that great programmer and critic that you think you >are, make the changes to the program yourself. Why is it worthless? >Don't you know how to run programs that you compiled in the shell? >Or is it that you don't like having to load the shell to run a >program. Abacus will let you copy the shell to other disk's. All >you have to do is set the autoexec file to load and run the program >and anyone can run the program. >You have not proved your claim that Abucus Software is not worth >its money. First of all, I never claimed to be a great programmer. I do have enough knowledge of programming to make some of the corrections to Super C 128 myself. Unfortunately, Abacus refuses to provide the information I need to make these corrections. I cannot blindly change a program without enough information about memory management and file formats. Even with this information, I would probably still need the source code to make changes to the linker. A task that isn't worth my effort. The shell and autoexec utilities (which does not work properly when booted from device 9) are too limiting. It also makes Abacus's Super C 128 more of a language extension rather than a real compiler since it is always dependent on the shell. The point I made originally is that the 64 verion has the ability to link C programs to run under BASIC. Why was this left out of the 128 version? Having the autoexec file, which fails to work in all configurations, does not replace the need for independent program development. In fact, with the shell using memory in BANK 0 and the RAM DISK using memory in BANK 1 RAM, there is little room left for most programming projects. I wrote to Abacus numerous times trying to find information about the shell and the RAM DISK. They never provided me with any of this information. What I asked for should not be withheld from registered users that want to customize the shell for their own needs. I used the C compiler for my programming assignments in my computer science courses. For most of those programs, mostly short mathematical assignments, Super C was sufficent (although somewhat outdated and limited from the UNIX version it is based on). For one assignment I had a major problem with the accuracy of double precision numbers. The compiler was very inaccurate and I had to complete the assignment on a UNIX machine. Abacus offered no help in this situation. Yes, I think that Super C 128 is worthless to anyone except those who just want to learn to program in C. Yet Abacus claims their compiler to be a programmer's development tool. I strongly disagree. From other users statements about this and other Abacus languages I cannot recommend that people spend their money on them. About other Abacus products, that was my mistake in condemning them. If you still feel that I haven't "proved" my claim, then I will be glad to post other messages until I have stated my claim to your statisfaction. I offer this information as my own opinion and experience with this product and this company. I stated originally that Abacus is more than willing to answer questions about their products, which is true. They are one of the better companies in terms of customer support. However, when it comes to real technical information they cannot help their customers. Even with the 128 being discontinued, there is still a large market of owners and 64 owners. The 64 version of Super C is almost identical to the 128 version. Therefore, any suggestions that I make can be equally valid for 64 owners.
lcs@remus.rutgers.edu (Lyle C. Seplowitz) (10/02/90)
>>Well, I posted the original message refered to above, and though I won't claim >>that Abucus Software is not worth its money, I will claim that Super C 128 is >>But for greater flexibility, Power C outshines Super C; no contest. >> >>Todd Lockemer >First of all we are not comparing Super C to Power C. You said that >Abucus Software was not worth the money, not just Super C. >I can program anything in Power C and Super C. Both are good products. >And I own both. The only limitation on either products is the users mind. >Super C does need a 1581 disk drive to avoid disk swapping. >Robert Piskac Rob, sorry that this got so out of hand. Todd did not claim that Abacus (it is spelled with an 'a' not 'u') is not worth the money, I did. I incorrectly made this statement and I appologize to Abacus. However, I still feel that their line of language compilers for the 64/128 is not worth the money. Users have more powerful alternatives with other companies or even in public domain (for the 128's CP/M mode). Now I have a question for you. Some time ago someone posted a message on this group about doing sprites with Super C 128. Since you know a lot about the this maybe you can answer the question. If more people can contribute suggestions, tips, or whatever then maybe people who own the product can make some use of it. Whether I am a good or "great" programmer makes no difference. There are more limitations to Super C than the users mind. Both Power C and Super C require disk swapping, Power C probably more so, although I base that information on numerous reviews and discussions I read about Power C. I did find that Super C did not require extensive disk swapping and its shell is more flexible in terms of drive support.
lockemer@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (10/03/90)
In article <14637@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, piskacrj@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert J Piskac) writes: >> Well, I posted the original message refered to above, and though I won't claim >> that Abucus Software is not worth its money, I will claim that Super C 128 is > >> But for greater flexibility, Power C outshines Super C; no contest. >> >> Todd Lockemer > > First of all we are not comparing Super C to Power C. You said that > Abucus Software was not worth the money, not just Super C. Whoah, let's clear things up. I did not say Abacus Software was not worth the money, the person who posted the message you previously responded to did. That message was in response to one that I had posted, and I was just adding my 2 cents about Super C and Power C, and I still say Super C is not worth the money. > > I can program anything in Power C and Super C. Both are good products. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Really now, ok then: * FLAME ON * 1) Write a program in Super C to access relative files. 2) Write a program in Super C to call a custom written assembly language subroutine. 3) Write a program in Super C to run independently of its shell. 4) Try to put Super C on a hard drive, let alone write a program on it. NOTE: It is assumed we are discussing Super C 128 as previously discussed. * FLAME OFF * > And I own both. The only limitation on either products is the users mind. I also own both. I wouldn't make my claims if I didn't. If I'm not mistaken, you agreed that Super C cannot create programs to run independently of the shell. I'm sorry, but for things I want to do, that is a serious limitation that has nothing to do with the user's mind! > Super C does need a 1581 disk drive to avoid disk swapping. It's too bad you can't put it on a hard drive; something you can do with Power C. Todd Lockemer
lcs@remus.rutgers.edu (Lyle C. Seplowitz) (10/04/90)
OK. Here's some background about the original message that I (Lyle) posted about Super C 128. Gregg Riedel writes: > I have not used the Abacus C compiler for the 128, but I did >buy a copy of BASIC 128, and can vouch for that product. > It does everything it claims... : : > ...So, Abacus software (in some cases) stands up to "real" programming >needs. Just though Abacus shouldn't be completely slammed. Funny you should write this, because in the original version of the message that I wrote, I stated that Abacus's BASIC compiler is an exception to the worthless list. Now I know most of you won't believe that, but it is true. If my connection was not terminated the three or four times that it was and all the other problems I was having didn't happen, then that first message that I posted may have been more carefully thought out. I don't own the BASIC compiler, but from every review I read the program was praised and recommended. I also have to mention Abacus's line of Commodore technical books, one of which is most interesting: Compiler Implementation and Design (or something like that). A book which I plan on purchasing. So, again, Abacus is not a worthless company. I still do think their line of compilers (except the BASIC compiler) is worthless. I thank Todd for pointing out to Robert some of the shortcomings of Super C 128. The compiler is just too out of date to be useful today. Maybe the people reading these messages can help Super C owners out with any information that might be beneficial to owners. Abacus certainly won't provide any technical information. This statement I can back-up. I wrote letters to them and called their technical support department and they never gave me any useful information. I did get a nice letter stating something like, Abacus is not in the process nor planning to make any changes to Super C. WHY CAN'T OWNERS OF SUPER C GET TECHNICAL INFORMATION (DETAILED MEMORY USAGE, FILE FORMATS, ETC.)? Anyone have any information about good (and cheap) C compilers for CP/M mode?
rickc@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Rick Clements) (10/04/90)
In article <Sep.29.16.24.18.1990.473@remus.rutgers.edu> lcs@remus.rutgers.edu (Lyle C. Seplowitz) writes: >I also, unfortunately, own Super C 128. I cannot recommend that >program because it fails in many ways from being a real compiler. The I have both the Super C128 and Power C. I believe both are worth the money. ($30 & $15 the last time I checked.) I believe Power C is a better deal. But, Super C is usable. It does have a few features Power C doesn't. The two bigest problems I have with Super C is you can only link a limited number of routines and it is copy protected. (If it isn't worth backing up, it's not worth using; so I use Power C.) >If you are really interested in programming in C for the 128 try CP/M >mode. There are numerous compilers available, although I'm not >familiar enough with this area to provide reliable information. Maybe >someone can provide more information? There are several C compilers for CP/M. There are two public domain compilers that can be accessed from Simtel20 by FTP or a mail server. These AREN'T full K&R compilers. There are several comerical compilers. Below is part of an article from comp.cpm regarding one of them. }Also, I sell the MIX 'C' compiler for CP/M. It is a full K & R }implementation of the 'C' language that comes with a }tutorial/manual which, in my opinion, alone is worth the price }of the package. Price of the package is $20.00 plus $5.00 for }S&H in the USA (CA must add sales tax). It's a true bargain for }the beginning and intermediate 'C' language programmer. Since I }support TeleVideo CP/M systems on my BBS, I only 'stock' the }software on TeleVideo (5.25" DD,DS) formatted disks. If you }cannot transfer to your disk format, I can put the software on }almost any UNIFORM supported format for $2.50 per disk (2 disks) }or I can arrange for you to download the software from the BBS }directly to your computer. } Ed Grey \*\ Sysop of The Grey Matter BBS & RCP/M 213-971-6260 } P.O. Box #2186 \*\ Bitnet: ac959%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm } Inglewood, CA 90305 \*\ Internet: ac959@cleveland.freenet.edu } USA \**\ (213) 759-7406 \**\ Fidonet: 1:102/752 -- Rick Clements (RickC@pogo.WV.TEK.COM)
dg@pallio.UUCP (David Goodenough) (10/08/90)
lcs@remus.rutgers.edu (Lyle C. Seplowitz) says: > ..... Much about poor C Compilers for 128 mode deleted ..... > If you are really interested in programming in C for the 128 try CP/M > mode. There are numerous compilers available, although I'm not > familiar enough with this area to provide reliable information. Maybe > someone can provide more information? There are several good C Compilers for CP/M available, depending on exactly what you want. The cheapest is Ron Cain's Small C - this is free, being in the public domain. Check SIMTEL20 if you can FTP, otherwise use either the BITFTP server at PUCC.BITNET, or the LISTSERV server at PLAINS.NODAK.EDU (aka: NDSUVM1.BITNET) It's also in the SIG-M P.D. Library, and probably in the FOG Library too. Two other commercial products are: BDS-C - this isn't really K & R, but it is useable. Up to V1.5 the libraries were a bit non-standard, but that all got cleaned up for V1.6. Of the three compilers here, this is the fastest of the lot for compilations by a factor of about 5 to 1. No, I'm not kidding, this thing just screams when it's compiling: it loads the whole source into ram and grinds away. It's about $90.00, if you want a copy try sending E-mail to SAGE@LL.LL.MIT.EDU - that's Jay Sage, and he'll be able to sell you a copy. MIX C is _VERY_ close to K & R, all it's missing are enums and bitfields. It's slower compiling, and has one other oddity. By default it leaves some of the run time support out of the .COM file, loading it at run time. This is OK for development, but not so hot if you're planning to re-distribute the finished programs. However, there is a link time option to cause the R.T. Lib to be loaded into the executable, if you want to do it that way. I don't know what the cost of this one is, or where you'd go to get one, however it is also a very good product. Try checking some of the adverts in Computer Shopper. With BDS-C it's possible to link in assembler code, although it's a bit messy, and I don't know whether this can be done with MIX. I do know that Small C outputs assembler source, so linking in assembler is trivial, since you have to throw the whole mess at an assembler any way. This also makes it dead easy to configure Small C for _ANY_ assembler, just beat up on the code generator, and you're flying. This also _MIGHT_ provide a means to create a stand alone C Compiler for the 64 or the 128: if some brave soul wanted to create a 6510 or 8502 code generator for one of the C64 / C128 assemblers, then you'd have a compiler going fairly quick. -- dg@pallio.UUCP - David Goodenough +---+ IHS | +-+-+ ..... !harvard!xait!pallio!dg +-+-+ | AKA: dg%pallio.uucp@xait.xerox.com +---+
ez001287@deneb (Thomas Lew) (10/11/90)
In article <XX00011d9d@pallio.UUCP> dg@pallio.UUCP (David Goodenough) writes: >The cheapest is Ron Cain's Small C - this is free, being in the public >domain. Check SIMTEL20 if you can FTP, otherwise use either the BITFTP server >at PUCC.BITNET, or the LISTSERV server at PLAINS.NODAK.EDU (aka: >NDSUVM1.BITNET) I've been FTP-ing from various sites for a while now, but SIMTEL20 seems to work a bit differently from the rest. I can't find any "get"-table files or find any changable directories. Can anyone help?