[comp.sys.mac.programmer] LSC 3.0 Gripes or Commendations?

jasst3@cisunx.UUCP (Jeffrey A. Sullivan) (08/30/88)

If there's anything about LSC 3.0 of particular merit (or demerit), I'd like to hear about it for a possible magazine article I'm writing.

Email me with the stuff and I'll summarize.

All levels of comment (from non-user to mega-hacker) are appreciated.


-- 
..........................................................................
Jeffrey Sullivan			  | University of Pittsburgh
jas@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu		  | Intelligent Systems Studies Program
jasper@PittVMS.BITNET, jasst3@cisunx.UUCP | Graduate Student

bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long) (08/31/88)

In article <12121@cisunx.UUCP> jasst3@cisunx.UUCP (Jeffrey A. Sullivan) writes:
>If there's anything about LSC 3.0 of particular merit (or demerit), I'd like
>to hear about it for a possible magazine article I'm writing.

My main gripes with Think-C are:

	it generates some of the worst code I've seen a compiler generate

		and

	it sure would be nice if I wasn't locked into using their editor (i.e.
	if the thing were modular enough that I could write my own "shell" 
	and "editor" to look and feel the way that I want.
-- 
	Roger L. Long
	dhw68k!bytebug

fjo@ttrdf.UUCP (Frank Owen ) (09/02/88)

in article <11062@dhw68k.cts.com>, bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long) says:
> 
> My main gripes with Think-C are:
> 
> 	it generates some of the worst code I've seen a compiler generate

   Have you compared it with some of the other non-optimizing C compilers
on the Mac?. I think it compares very favorably with any of them.
   In fact, I think the ONLY Mac C compiler that generates any better
code is the MPW compiler. It is a true optimizing compiler, and generates
pretty decent code.


-- 
Frank Owen (fjo@ttrdf)  312-982-2182
AT&T Information Systems
Computer Systems Division, 5555 Touhy Ave., Skokie, IL  60077
PATH:  ...!att!ttrdf!fjo

jwhitnell@cup.portal.com (09/02/88)

Roger L. Long writes
|My main gripes with Think-C are:
|        it generates some of the worst code I've seen a compiler generate 

You havn't looked at the output of too many compilers :-).  The first
version of the megamax compiler wins that award hands down.  Take a look
at the code it generated for switchs sometimes if you want a good laugh.
The code generated by LSC is relativly clean and minimal.  The problem is
that it doesn't have either a peephole optimizer or a real optimizer to
back it up.  This leaves it with lots of code that could be eliminated.

|   
|        it sure would be nice if I wasn't locked into using their editor (i.e.
|        if the thing were modular enough that I could write my own "shell"
|        and "editor" to look and feel the way that I want.  

There is a lot of talk about a solution for this "problem" in LSC 4.0. 
Solutions that have been discussed in public include using C as a macro
language (compile by the compiler), allowing new editors too replace the
old in LSC and communicating via IAC with a 3rd party editor under MF.
Which solution they will choose and when 4.0 will be avaiable is anybodies
guess.

--
Jerry Whitnell
jwhitnell@cup.portal.com
..!sun!cup.portal.com!jwhitnell