sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (08/21/84)
I'd like to hear people's opinions about MSDOS LISP and C implementations.
Which is the "best" C compiler for MSDOS (if there is any): Lattice/Microsoft,
DeSmet, CI86, others? What experiences can you share about them?
Also, I know of several LISP systems for MSDOS: IQLISP, MuLISP, TLC LISP
and Golden Common LISP. Same info desired here.
BTW, I have only a Sanyo semi-clone, not an IBM PC, so incompatibility
info is welcome, too.
Please answer directly to me, and I will summarize to the net.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAkfl@hoxna.UUCP (Kenton Lee) (08/22/84)
xxx The most popular of these is probably the Computer Innovations C86 compiler. It now supports 32 bit pointers (i.e. 1M addressing) and is very compatible with UNIX compilers. It also is compatible with the MS-DOS linker. Technical support from the company is excelent. Lattice is more expensive and I understand that it is less compatible with UNIX. DeSmet is the cheapest of the bunch. It has a MUCH smaller library and I hear it has several bugs. I would recommend C86 for production type work and DeSmet for home computing. By the way, I use the IBM PC version of C86 on my Zenith Z100 with no problems. There are some IBM PC dependent subroutines in the library (graphics stuff), but these are easy to modify since full source is included. -- Kenton Lee, Bell Labs - WB wb3g!kfl or hoxna!kfl
jrodrig@MITRE-GATEWAY.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (08/23/84)
From: jose rodriguez <jrodrig@MITRE-GATEWAY.ARPA> I got Computer Innovations C86 and found it quite good (maybe a little slow) In the other hand it comes with a very rich library with source code. The nice thing about this is that you get several versions of the libraries: small memory model, all dos'es, soft math small memory model, all dos'es, 8087 math small memory model, dos 2.0, soft math small memory model, dos 2.0, 8087 math large model, all dos'es, soft math large model, all dos'es, 8087 math (by "all dos'es" I mean versions before 2.0) Another nice feature is that it provides a runtime environment close to Unix -- you can have argc and argv in your main. Also you can tinker with this environment, they provide the source code that sets it up. The people at Computer Innovations are quite reacheable and helpfull. They got a BBS where gripes can be exchanged and public domain software up/downloaded. One thing which I don't like: the "optimizing compiler" description of it. I have looked at the code generated and it is pretty gross. A half decent peep-hole optimizer could shrink your code size from 10% to (I would say) 40%, 50%. (Particularly if you write lots of small routines). Does anyone know what optimization techniques they use? All in all, I am quite satisfied with it. Jose jrodrig@mitre-gw
guido@mcvax.UUCP (Guido van Rossum) (08/28/84)
>Lattice is more expensive and I understand that it is less >compatible with UNIX. Lattice may be (somewhat) more expensive, but it is certainly not less compatible with UNIX (the library was, but the new version (2.10) seems to solve most problems). In other respects, it is BETTER than CI86: supports all combinations of small/large code/data space (so you can have 300 kb of code but 64 kb of data, which allows 16-bit pointers, which in turn makes smaller and faster code), better treatment of structure items (different struct's may have items of the same name in different positions). I find Lattice's documentation superior to CI86's. Admittedly, CI86 includes source of the library. Concluding, for really big programs, I would strongly recommend Lattice. -- Guido van Rossum, "Stamp Out BASIC" Committee, CWI, Amsterdam guido @ mcvax