Scott.Maxwell@samba.acs.unc.edu (BBS Account) (07/10/90)
Uh, I'm a little confused by what I've read regarding Lattice C v. Aztec
C. Everybody seems to say (a) Aztec usually produces faster code, (b) Aztec
usually produces the code faster (that is to say, it compiles faster),
(c) Aztec is cheaper, and (d) Lattice is more widely used.
Now, that can't all be right -- unless Lattice has *vastly* superior
advertising or something, and I can't imagine that would be enough to make the
difference. Assuming I'm right about points (a), (b) and (c), though, why the
heck is (d) true? Does Lattice offer better support? What have I missed?
--
Scott Maxwell (CSMAXWEL@ECUVM1.BITNET or Scott.Maxwell@samba.acs.unc.edu)peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (07/10/90)
Lattice C was there first. Also, Commodore's examples have been in Lattice C. I believe that the new Lattice produces better code than Aztec, but then the new Aztec is supposed to have swapped this over again. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
jmeissen@oregon.oacis.org ( Staff OACIS) (07/11/90)
In article <544@beguine.UUCP> Scott.Maxwell@samba.acs.unc.edu (BBS Account) writes: > > Uh, I'm a little confused by what I've read regarding Lattice C v. Aztec >C. Everybody seems to say (a) Aztec usually produces faster code, (b) Aztec >usually produces the code faster (that is to say, it compiles faster), >(c) Aztec is cheaper, and (d) Lattice is more widely used. > Now, that can't all be right -- unless Lattice has *vastly* superior >advertising or something, and I can't imagine that would be enough to make the >difference. Assuming I'm right about points (a), (b) and (c), though, why the >heck is (d) true? Does Lattice offer better support? What have I missed? (a) Aztec USED to produce faster code. The two compilers are now relatively close, although I would give Lattice the edge (but I'm prejudiced). (b) Aztec used to produce the code faster because of pre-compiled headers and a faster linker. Lattice closed that gap a while back, and now it depends a lot on what you compile, how you use RAM, and what optimizations you do. Aztec still compiles a little faster in general, though, I think. (c) I think mail order prices have Lattice coming in just under Manx, but I'm not sure. They are pretty close. Aztec didn't bundle the source level debugger the last time I checked, so that was an extra cost. As for why Lattice is in wider use.... 1) Lattice was the original Amiga C, and for a while was the only C compiler available for the Amiga. 2) Recently Lattice has pushed the technology in the Amiga market, with Amiga-specific support built into the compiler (#pragma, 'chip' keyword, etc). Aztec has been playing catch-up. 3) Lattice has always had superior technical support, with such features as automatic free updates for minor releases. Manx would often go for weeks without answering the phone, and their BIX conference went for several months without any comments from them. Lattice, on the other hand, would monitor BIX, their own board, and another I don't recall on a daily basis. -- John Meissen .............................. Oregon Advanced Computing Institute jmeissen@oacis.org (Internet) | "That's the remarkable thing about life; ..!sequent!oacis!jmeissen (UUCP) | things are never so bad that they can't jmeissen (BIX) | get worse." - Calvin & Hobbes