ericco@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric C. Olson) (10/11/89)
Are there any C compilers out there that can operate on a minimally configured IBM? I have 640K and floppy drives. Thanks in advance, Eric Eric ericco@ssl.berkeley.edu
austin@bucsf.bu.edu (Austin Ziegler) (10/11/89)
On 10 Oct 89 19:55:30 GMT, ericco@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric C. Olson) said: Eric> Are there any C compilers out there that can operate on a minimally Eric> configured IBM? I have 640K and floppy drives. It will be a pain (three disks on a two disk system), but Turbo C can be installed to a floppy-drive system. You can set several options, and the version 2.0 Install program provides help while installing. Austin
gmb@occrsh.ATT.COM (Gary_M_Brammer) (10/11/89)
ericco@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric C. Olson) writes: >Are there any C compilers out there that can operate on a minimally >configured IBM? I have 640K and floppy drives. >Thanks in advance, >Eric >Eric >ericco@ssl.berkeley.edu You might try POWER C from Mix Software at: 1132 Commerce Dr. Richardson, Texas 75081 (214) 783 - 6001 Also it is only $20. Gary Brammer AT&T Oklahoma City Works
austin@bucsf.bu.edu (Austin Ziegler) (10/12/89)
On 11 Oct 89 14:11:26 GMT,
gmb@occrsh.ATT.COM (Gary_M_Brammer) said:
GMB> ericco@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric C. Olson) writes:
ECO>Are there any C compilers out there that can operate on a minimally
ECO>configured IBM? I have 640K and floppy drives.
ECO>Thanks in advance,
ECO>Eric
ECO>Eric
ECO>ericco@ssl.berkeley.edu
GMB> You might try POWER C from Mix Software at:
GMB> 1132 Commerce Dr.
GMB> Richardson, Texas 75081
GMB> (214) 783 - 6001
GMB> Also it is only $20.
It depends on what sort of compiler you want. When PC Magazine did
its reviews on C compilers Power C was not rated very high. (Of course,
neither was Turbo C, but that was version 1.5, and 2.0 is much better than
what they reviewed.) Turbo C, although it costs from $100 to $250 is well
worth it because it has an integrated debugger ($100), and on the
Professional Edition ($250) it also includes an Assembler and a standalone
Debugger.
Austintom@sysint.UUCP (Tom Aman) (10/12/89)
Re a C compiler that can be installed on a minimum system (640K, and 2 floppy drives) - I have been successfully using Mix Software's Power C with this kind of configuration - even managed to include their split screen editor on the same floppies.
rjs@clyde.ATT.COM (Robert Snyder,14D-350,4467,ATTBL) (10/12/89)
In article <40121@bu-cs.BU.EDU> austin@bucsf.bu.edu (Austin Ziegler) writes: >On 11 Oct 89 14:11:26 GMT, >gmb@occrsh.ATT.COM (Gary_M_Brammer) said: > >GMB> ericco@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric C. Olson) writes: > >ECO>Are there any C compilers out there that can operate on a minimally >ECO>configured IBM? I have 640K and floppy drives. > >GMB> You might try POWER C from Mix Software at: >GMB> 1132 Commerce Dr. >GMB> Richardson, Texas 75081 >GMB> (214) 783 - 6001 >GMB> Also it is only $20. > AUS> It depends on what sort of compiler you want. When PC Magazine did AUS>its reviews on C compilers Power C was not rated very high. (Of course, AUS>neither was Turbo C, but that was version 1.5, and 2.0 is much better than AUS>what they reviewed.) Turbo C, although it costs from $100 to $250 is well AUS>worth it because it has an integrated debugger ($100), and on the AUS>Professional Edition ($250) it also includes an Assembler and a standalone AUS>Debugger. Power C also has a nice debugger. It's biggest drawback is that it only supports the "medium" model of memory management. Thus you won't be able to compile nethack :-). But anything you write specifically for the PC/DOS environment ought to compile fine. If you have 1.2M floppies, you can probably use Power C without too much hassle. If your floppies are only 360K though, you'll probably be doing an unreasonable amount of floppy swapping. Robert Snyder {att|clyde}!moss!rjs rjs@moss.ATT.COM (201) 386-4467 The above statements are my own thoughts and observations and are not intended to represent my employer's position on the subject(s). I have no relationship other than customer with Mix Software.
ODX@PSUVM.BITNET (Tim Larson) (10/12/89)
A new C has formed that may be worth checking out. TopSpeed C, by Jensen & Partners International is supposedly 100% ANSI-proposed standard, has a superset of MSC and TC libraries (including BGI and Borland text windows as well as Microsoft graphics). Rumor has it that the highly optimizing compiler produces code as good as a competent assembler programmer would produce. Provides a seamless interface and similar environment to TopSpeed Modula-2 and TopSpeed Assembler, as well as source-level debugger. Also TopSpeed C++ and TopSpeed Ada are slated with similar claims (for 1990-1). QUESTION: Has anyone seen this product yet? Are the claims and rumors true? They are believable, since JPI produced a *great* M2 compiler (IMHO). Just trying to keep the discussion going. (I have nothing to do with JPI except that I use their M2 compiler). -Tim Larson odx@psuvm.bitnet
joynson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (David Joynson- RCA) (10/13/89)
Just curious (not wanting to start a flame war), but what about QuickC?
I've seen many opinions about TurboC, MSC, and others, but nothing about
QuickC. I mean, some of us can't afford MSC and still want to produce
object code compatible with MASM. Any thoughts?
Yes, I am aware that QC is a subset of MSC, but I want to read other
peoples thoughts on the subject.
Usual product disclaimer applies.......
===============================================================================
David Joynson |"Beware the Jabberwok my son. The jaws that bite,
joynson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov | the claws that catch. Beware the jub-jub bird,
| and the frumious bandersnatch!" - Lewis Carrol
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are all mine and no one elses! **
===============================================================================doug@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Douglas W O'neal) (10/13/89)
While we're on the subject od C compilers, has anybody every attempted modifying GNU C to cross compile MSDOS code from a UNIX/VMS/??? system? -- Doug O'Neal Distributed Systems Programmer Homewood Academic Computing doug@jhuvms.bitnet Johns Hopkins University mimsy!aplcen!jhunix!doug
floyd@starsend.UUPC (Floyd Miller) (10/18/89)
While on the subject of C compilers for PC's and DOS I would like to ask if there exist any C compilers with an option to make use of 80386 instructions and/or use 32-bit words for the default integer (int). Does anyone know if Borland or MicroSoft plan to upgrade Turbo or Quick C (respectively)? ******* ************************************* ***** ********************** Floyd Miller *** *************** * ********* floyd%starsend@PRC.Unisys.com *** starsend!floyd@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.com *
tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) (10/18/89)
Watcom Products now makes a 386 version of their Watcom C compiler. I have not yet used the 386 compiler but their current PC compiler is without a doubt the finest PC C compiler available. Tim Henrion tim@banyan.com --or-- ...!buita!banyan!tim
wozniak@utkux1.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) (10/19/89)
Yes, but I cannot remember the names of the companies. C compilers that create 386 code are aroung $400+. Turbo C is a joke and Quick C 2.00 is slow. -bryon-
terrell@cadnetix.COM (Eric Terrell) (10/19/89)
In what respect is Turbo C a joke? Terrell
austin@bucsf.bu.edu (Austin Ziegler) (10/20/89)
>>>>> On 17 Oct 89 22:19:37 GMT, floyd@starsend.UUPC (Floyd Miller) said:
FM> Does anyone know if Borland or MicroSoft plan to upgrade Turbo or Quick
FM> C (respectively)?
I read in a computer language magazine recently that Borland will be
enhancing TurboC to include Objects with the next version. I think that
MicroSoft plans to do the same with all of their languages, too. Has
anyone else heard?
Elminster, the Sage of Shadowdale (austin@bucsf.bu.edu)
700 Commonwealth Box 2094, Boston, MA 02215
"S.F.'S NO GOOD!!" They bellow till we're deaf.
"But this looks good." "WELL THEN IT'S NOT S.F.!!"
-- Kingsley Amisjohn@wsl.UUCP (John Allen on wsl) (10/21/89)
In article <1199@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> wozniak@utkux1.cs.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) writes: > > Yes, but I cannot remember the names of the companies. C >compilers that create 386 code are aroung $400+. > > Turbo C is a joke and Quick C 2.00 is slow. > > > -bryon- Maybe you all knowing 'C' compiler person could please inform us of some fast compilers that are not funny. I'm sure users world wide of both the above products would heartily disagree with you. Both have their flaws (as have all other compilers). I use both products as well as many others (MSC, QUICKC, TURBOC, TURBOPASCAL, ZORTECH) and find neither suitable for everything I do. However I don't find either a joke or particularly slow. (might be on a 4.77Mhz 8088, but that's the machines fault).
wozniak@utkux1.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) (10/21/89)
It's enviroment dood. -bryon-
jk0@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin) (10/21/89)
In article <1199@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> wozniak@utkux1.cs.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) writes:
=
= Yes, but I cannot remember the names of the companies. C
=compilers that create 386 code are aroung $400+.
=
= Turbo C is a joke and Quick C 2.00 is slow.
=
=
= -bryon-
Oh for crying out loud, another go*-da** flame war! Turbo C is a
joke, but Quick C 2.00 is OK except that it's slow??? Get real. Quick C
is the joke!!
--
--
Jason Coughlin ( jk0@sun.soe.clarkson.edu , jk0@clutx )
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the
part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of." - They Might Be Giantstoma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (10/22/89)
In article <1989Oct20.213641.982@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> jk0@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin) writes: >In article <1199@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> wozniak@utkux1.cs.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) writes: >> Turbo C is a joke and Quick C 2.00 is slow. > Oh for crying out loud, another go*-da** flame war! Turbo C is a >joke, but Quick C 2.00 is OK except that it's slow??? Get real. Quick C >is the joke!! You're both wrong, 'C' is the joke!!! (only .5 :-)) Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
fredex@cg-atla.UUCP (Fred Smith) (10/22/89)
In article <271@wsl.UUCP> john@wsl.ie (John Allen on wsl) writes: >In article <1199@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> wozniak@utkux1.cs.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) writes: >disagree with you. Both have their flaws (as have all other compilers). >I use both products as well as many others (MSC, QUICKC, TURBOC, TURBOPASCAL, ZORTECH) and find neither suitable for everything I do. > >However I don't find either a joke or particularly slow. (might be on a 4.77Mhz 8088, but that's the machines fault). Well, even on an 8088 system Quick C and Turbo C are one (#*&%$ of a lot faster than most other compilers, even though the underlying hardware is about as slow as molasses climbing a hill in January! In fact, I would submit that fast compilers, such as turbo or Quick, are MOST useful on a slow machine because they remove much of the tedium from a development cycle! I was unaware that Turbo was funny! I haven't used it, but know many who do. I am a Microsoft C user and it aint funny either! Fred
SLORES@umiami.miami.edu (Stanislaw L. Olejniczak) (10/24/89)
In article <6205@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>, toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes: > > You're both wrong, 'C' is the joke!!! > > (only .5 :-)) I don't want to get into a flame war, so this is _just_ _MY_ opinion: I think C's being misused. I think other langauges (Ada, Modula-2 perhaps) are better suited for the mega-lines-of-code projects. C is very nice for relatively _small_ programs that can be linked, as in, for example, **IX. I think as our understanding of languages increases, we should see not only that we _can_ do "it" in language "X", but we should start looking that job "Q" can be done better in lanague "P", or perhaps even in a mixture of languages. I fault people (myself included) for using _one_ language for everything. Languages are tools, and no one (in their right mind) tries to unscrew a kitchen sink pipe with a screwdriver! ---- Stan Olejniczak Internet: slores@umiami.miami.edu University of Miami, FL USA UUCP: (temp void) gould!umbio!solejni SLORES@UMIAMI.BITNET UUCP: (?) umigw!gables!slores Voice: (305) 547-6571 FAX: (305) 548-4612 My opinions cannot possibly represent the views of anyone else!
wrs@falcon.lanl.gov (William Somsky) (10/25/89)
In article <3171@umiami.miami.edu> SLORES@umiami.miami.edu (Stanislaw L. Olejniczak) writes: > Languages are tools, and no one (in their right mind) > tries to unscrew a kitchen sink pipe with a screwdriver! True, the optimal route would be to select and use the best language for the job at hand. However, there are the additional constraints that you must have the language and be competent in that language. I might very well try to unscrew the sink pipe with a screwdriver if it would cost me a few hundred dollars to buy a pipe-wrench and a few months to learn to use it sufficiently well. And I can't just give up the screwdriver, since IT might be the best tool sometime. [Sigh] :-( ------------------------------------------------------------------------ William R. Somsky Center for Nonlinear Studies ; MS-B258 wrs@falcon.lanl.gov Los Alamos National Lab ; Los Alamos NM 87545
cgs@umd5.umd.edu (Chris G. Sylvain) (10/27/89)
In article <14118@lanl.gov> wrs@falcon.UUCP (William Somsky) writes: - In article <3171@umiami.miami.edu> - SLORES@umiami.miami.edu (Stanislaw L. Olejniczak) writes: - - - Languages are tools, and no one (in their right mind) - - tries to unscrew a kitchen sink pipe with a screwdriver! - - True, the optimal route would be to select and use the best language - for the job at hand. However, there are the additional constraints - that you must have the language and be competent in that language. - [...] This may very well be true and good reasoning, but remember: You can't fight human nature (very well). What I mean is best expressed by a curmudgeonly remark: Once a person learns to use a hammer well, everything begins to look like a nail. There's a certain resistance to change that must be overcome. For the person used to using a screwdriver, it will seem natural and appropriate that the sink pipe appears to be a peculiar kind of screw. A person who knows better may think the screwdriver person is out of their mind, but the screwdriver person will insist their sanity is intact. Therefore, one will tend to use only what one knows, and will lack the wisdom to perceive a more effective means of accomplishing the same goal. People have the capacity to deny the existence of better ways simply because the other ways are different. -- --==---==---==-- Rath: A sort of green pig -- ARPA: cgs@umd5.UMD.EDU BITNET: cgs%umd5@umd2 -- -- UUCP: ..!uunet!umd5.umd.edu!cgs --
bulger@ug.cs.dal.ca (Fred Alan Bulger) (06/24/91)
Hi! I'm new to the PC world and I am interested in buying a C-compiler for
my 386 SX. I've been told that Borland C++ is a good choice, but I'd like
a few opinions on C compilers before I rush out and buy Borland. What I'd
like to know is the advantages and disadvantages of each, as well as
compatability and portability with respect to the source code. Responses
are appreciated by e-mail or news ( I'm sure others might be interested in
this topic).
Thanks in advance..
Fred Bulger
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia
CANADA