wolff@cs.purdue.EDU (Robert M. Wolff) (04/10/89)
On the subject of Manx...does anybody know when/if manx 4.1 will be out? Also, how much is the upgrade going to cost? Thirdly, are there going to be changes made to SDB? Like maybe multi- processing debugging?? :-) bob -- -=-=-=- Insert Standard Disclaimer Here, Please... -=-=-=- /************* MS-Dos? Me? No, You must be mistaken! *************/
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (04/10/89)
In article <6507@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> wolff@cs.purdue.EDU (Robert M. Wolff) writes: >On the subject of Manx...does anybody know when/if manx 4.1 will be out? Never. They'll wait for 5.0. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
wolff@cs.purdue.EDU (Robert M. Wolff) (04/11/89)
From article <16429@oberon.USC.EDU>, by papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa): > In article <6507@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> wolff@cs.purdue.EDU (Robert M. Wolff) writes: >>On the subject of Manx...does anybody know when/if manx 4.1 will be out? > > Never. They'll wait for 5.0. > 5.0?? Arrgh, what's the reasoning behind that? I was under the impression that 4.1 was ANSI standard and it was going to be quite nice. What is it missing that 5.0 will have? I'm also worried about manx losing its share of amigans too. The manx/ lattice war is certainly not new (each one putting a new release out very close to each other), and right now I feel that lattice probably has a pretty good edge over manx 3.6. (speed/tight code/etc) Not trying to start a compiler war here...just inquiring... :-) bob -- -=-=-=- Insert Standard Disclaimer Here, Please... -=-=-=- /************* MS-Dos? Me? No, You must be mistaken! *************/
disd@hubcap.clemson.edu (Gary Heffelfinger) (04/13/89)
From article <Apr.13.08.36.50.1989.19852@topaz.rutgers.edu>, by pboudrea@topaz.rutgers.edu (Boudreau): > Well, I talked briefly to the Manx people at the AmiExpo in New York > recently. The plans are for a very *nice* integrated package (via > AREXX ports). > > What this is: a new SDB, the 5.0 compiler, and Z talking together > via AREXX to give a "QuickC" environment. Of course, since it is > AREXX, you can use other editors instead of Z like CED or Uedit. I > think it will be worth the wait. (Sometime in the summer, but I am not > holding my breath) Poop! I've been resisting AREXX, but it looks like I'll need to break down. Was there any mention of licensing some minimal subset of it from Mr Hawes, for the use of poor programmers who don't have (and can't really afford) AREXX? It seems vaguely sleazy to advertise an integrated environment (and you know they will), that won't necessarily be available to all purchasers. Yeah, I know. "Plunk down the damn $50 for AREXX and quitcher whining!" Sigh. Gary -- Gary R Heffelfinger - disd@hubcap.clemson.edu "If it should become necessary to fight, could you arrange to find me some rocks to throw at them?" W.T. Riker
pboudrea@topaz.rutgers.edu (Boudreau) (04/13/89)
In article <6515@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> wolff@cs.purdue.EDU (Robert M. Wolff) writes: > From article <16429@oberon.USC.EDU>, by papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa): > > > > Never. They'll wait for 5.0. > > > > 5.0?? Arrgh, what's the reasoning behind that? I was under the impression > that 4.1 was ANSI standard and it was going to be quite nice. What is > it missing that 5.0 will have? Well, I talked briefly to the Manx people at the AmiExpo in New York recently. The plans are for a very *nice* integrated package (via AREXX ports). What this is: a new SDB, the 5.0 compiler, and Z talking together via AREXX to give a "QuickC" environment. Of course, since it is AREXX, you can use other editors instead of Z like CED or Uedit. I think it will be worth the wait. (Sometime in the summer, but I am not holding my breath)