klt@utgard.uucp (Ken Thompson) (05/03/90)
>>1. What's the current state of Manx C v5.0? Is it stable and working well? Paul Falstad's answer: >Definitely not. There are a multitude of bugs in it. I heard that >5.0b will be coming out soon (may already be out), which will hopefully fix >most of the known bugs. Don't get 5.0a unless you want to upgrade again >right away. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Does that mean that us poor slobs that bought 5.0a will have to shell out another $75 for a version that works? Oboy. klt -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- csusac!utgard!pyrgard!klt (The address in the header is wrong) another in a list of things I claim no responsibility for... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pfalstad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul John Falstad) (05/03/90)
In article <1990May2.121652.8294@utgard.uucp> klt@utgard.uucp (Ken Thompson) writes: >>most of the known bugs. Don't get 5.0a unless you want to upgrade again >>right away. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Does that mean that us poor slobs that bought 5.0a will have to shell out >another $75 for a version that works? Oh no!!!! Don't worry. According to the Manx BBS, the cost of 5.0b will just be shipping and handling. That's fair, I think. (although $75 for a buggy version is a little hard to take!) -- Paul Falstad INTERNET: pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu PLink: HYPNOS GEnie: P.FALSTAD CIS:70016,1355 Disclaimer: Everything I said is false, including this sentence "I'd like to leave the army, sir." "Why is that?" "It's DANGEROUS!"
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (05/09/90)
A few words in the defense of Manx 5.0. Sure, it has some problems, but by making heavy use of function prototypes (and it has a command-line option to read source and generate prototypes), I believe I've cut my coding errors by about two-thirds. That is to say that with prototypes, the compiler is catching 2/3rds of the bugs that I used to have to debug at runtime. Further, you no longer have to be super-careful to cast all your ints to longs when calling Amiga library routines from the 16-bit int model, because the compiler does it for you, again thanks to prototypes, and eliminating a major source of gurus during the development process. Also, the code it generates is significantly better if you compile with the -so option, and it has this #pragma definition for library functions where it generates the code to call the library routines directly rather than calling glue routines that pop arguments off the stack and move them into registers, then calling the library routine from the glue routine, improving performance. 32-bit integers are the default now, which'll make some programs slower unless you compile with the right switches to get 16-bit ints. (I'm pretty much of a fan of 32-bit ints on 32-bit machines anyway and yes, in my opinion, the 68000 is a 32-bit machine -- certainly as much as the 386SX is) All in all, I would not consider going back to 3.6 for a second. -- -- uunet!sugar!karl -- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
jmeissen@oregon.oacis.org (John Meissen) (05/10/90)
In article <5677@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >A few words in the defense of Manx 5.0. Sure, it has some problems, but by [list of features deleted] Gee, it's nice to know that Manx has finally caught up to where Lattice was two major releases ago. :-) -- 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