goodrum@unccvax.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) (03/09/89)
I have been thinking about getting a C compiler for my 512K mac (which I will probably upgrade to a Mac Plus, although I am not sure when) and have noticed that Aztec C has become incredibly cheap. I have seen it advertized for $65. If I am going to upgrade my machine it would be good to be able to save some money on software. Does anybody out there have much experience with Aztec C? Suggestions, comments, are appreciated. -- Cloyd Goodrum III UNCC Computer Science Department Charlotte, N.C. unccvax!goodrum@mcnc.org
snow@dinl.uucp (john snow) (03/11/89)
and much more reciently on the Mac, and have found both of them to be excellent products. It has a lot of power and flexability, and gives you easy ways to do things like DA's and drivers (make that a qualified 'easy', we are talking about the Mac here). There is a companion debugger, SDB, which I highly recommend. It is good and can save many hours of frustration. I can't make a comparasion with other products such as the ever popular LSC since I have never seen them, I opted for the Aztec because of my good experiences with the DOS version. In general I would say that their documentation is weak, their tech support is poor, but their software is excellent. Hope this helps. John Snow
earleh@northstar (Earle Horton) (03/11/89)
In article <847@dinl.mmc.UUCP> snow@dinl.uucp (john snow) writes: >I can't make a comparasion with other products such as the >ever popular LSC since I have never seen them, I opted for the Aztec >because of my good experiences with the DOS version. In general I would >say that their documentation is weak, their tech support is poor, but >their software is excellent. Well, I can make the comparison between MPW C and Aztec, and to a lesser extent LSC. The Aztec compiler is "source code compatible" with MPW. This means that all the header files have the same names, and the ToolBox data structures are declared the same way. The documentation I got with my copy says the company plans to maintain compatibility with MPW C. The Aztec compiler is not 100% pure compatible, but is so close that some rather large C source files which I have will compile under either compiler without any conditional compilation to allow for compiler differences. This to me is amazing: it says that at long last SOMEBODY out there is making an effort to be compatible with somebody else. The folks at Manx deserve a lot of credit for this. Before Manx did this, porting a C program between any two Macintosh development systems was about as much trouble as porting a program from UNIX or DOS to the Mac! Since Apple does, in fact, manufacture the computer, I wish all C compiler writers for the Mac would get on the ball and make their compilers MPW-compatible! (Yesterday wouldn't be soon enough.) Aztec also works under the MPW shell. I don't recommend using the Aztec shell at all unless you have a floppy based system or are a masochist. You can produce MPW Tools with the Aztec system. The present version does not support function prototypes, either Pascal or C, so it cannot do parameter checking as do MPW or LSC. This is the main, perhaps the only, thing I do not like about it. It seems to produce code somewhere between MPW and LSC: The code size of your finished application is smaller than with LSC and bigger than with MPW, and the time to get there falls in the middle, too. The compiler produces assembler source, which you then assemble with the supplied assembler. Neither of the other systems do this. This can be of benefit because a) You get to look at the code if you want and b) The compiler runs in less memory than the other two. I have used Aztec for about 6 months now, and I really like it. I prefer it to MPW, and I VASTLY prefer it to LSC. I mean, I won't even LOOK at LSC source code now. I have Aztec, MPW, and LSC compilers on my hard disk, and I am seriously thinking of deleting two of them to make some more room. You shouldn't have much trouble guessing which two are headed for the trash can!
anson@spray.CalComp.COM (Ed Anson) (03/13/89)
In article <1391@unccvax.UUCP> goodrum@unccvax.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) writes: > > I have been thinking about getting a C compiler for my 512K mac >(which I will probably upgrade to a Mac Plus, although I am not sure >when) and have noticed that Aztec C has become incredibly cheap. I have seen >it advertized for $65. If I am going to upgrade my machine it would be >good to be able to save some money on software. Lightspeec C sells for $95 from MacConnection. I have used Aztec C, and I have used Lightspeed C. My comparison can be summarized thus: There are much better ways to save $30. NOTE: I have no connection with the Lightspeed C folks, except as an extremely satisfied customer. The opinions expressed above are my own. -- ===================================================================== Ed Anson, Calcomp Display Products Division, Hudson NH 03051 (603) 885-8712, anson@elrond.CalComp.COM
fgz@lakart.UUCP (Federico Genoese-Zerbi) (03/15/89)
From article <2621@spray.CalComp.COM>, by anson@spray.CalComp.COM (Ed Anson): > In article <1391@unccvax.UUCP> goodrum@unccvax.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) writes: >> > > Lightspeec C sells for $95 from MacConnection. I have used Aztec C, and I > have used Lightspeed C. My comparison can be summarized thus: There are > much better ways to save $30. I'd like to add my $.02's worth of praise for Lightspeed C. I have used Consulair, Aztec and Lightspeed. I would not use anything other than Lightspeed C unless the other ones get MUCH better. Lightspeed C; there is no substitute. > NOTE: I have no connection with the Lightspeed C folks, except as an > extremely satisfied customer. The opinions expressed above are my own. The same for me. Federico Genoese-Zerbi {mirror, xait, cfisun}!lakart!fgz