dhosek@frigga.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) (12/14/90)
Could anyone recommend a good C compiler and a good Pascal compiler? These will be used on fairly large-scale projects (e.g., TeX, MF and their utilities are good examples of the magnitude of the things which I'll be working on. I'll be doing my work on a 386 MSDOS machine. -dh
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (12/15/90)
I'm pretty sure that the unanimous response will be to use either Turbo C 2.0 or Turbo C++ 1.01, since both are fast and VERY easy to use. If you want to do a program in 386 protected mode, then Watcom, Metaware, and Intel make protected mode C compilers. For pascal, Turbo Pascal 6.0 looks like the hot ticket -- an interface builder is part of the application program now. Plus you get access to utils such as Turbo Drive (extended memory compiler -- runs out of extended memroy), Turbo Assembler (more masm compatible than masm), Turbo Profiler (profiles function speeds and bottlencks), Turbo Editor (AWESOME editing environment), and Turbo Debugger (best debugger on the market, competed only by MultiScope). The only thing that I can think of as not good about Borland products is that they are not Windows 3.0 compatible.
ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) (12/15/90)
In article <25923@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: >I'm pretty sure that the unanimous response will be to use either Turbo C >2.0 or Turbo C++ 1.01, since both are fast and VERY easy to use. Microsoft C is said to have the best optimisation on the block. >For pascal, Turbo Pascal 6.0 looks >like the hot ticket -- an interface builder is part of the application >program now. Plus you get access to utils such as Turbo Drive (extended >memory compiler -- runs out of extended memroy), Turbo Assembler (more >masm compatible than masm), Turbo Profiler (profiles function speeds and >bottlencks), Turbo Editor (AWESOME editing environment), and Turbo Debugger >(best debugger on the market, competed only by MultiScope). Personally, I was very disappointed with tp6. You may well do well by getting a "used" tp5.5 (someone on comp.lang.pascal has been trying to sell one) at a bargain price; tp5.5 does essentially everything I'd want in tp6. The assembler, profiler and debugger are available with tp6, so what you lose is turbo-drive (compiler runs in extended memory) and turbo-vision (some kind of interface builder). Oh, and while we're on the topic of turbo pascal, the best addon to buy with TP is "Object Professional". It costs $135 discount and it's *awesome*. It contains good libraries for all kinds of things, full source code, an interface builder, etc. >The only thing >that I can think of as not good about Borland products is that they are not >Windows 3.0 compatible. Oooh, how I hate Windows! Imagine what would happen if someday Borland produced a Turbo Pascal which only worked under Windows! Windows almost makes the PC a Mac! Can you imagine how offensive that it?? Apart from making a 386 as fast as a 8088. I guess I'd use tpc+brief or just quit programming in TP. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Ajay Shah, (213)734-3930, ajayshah@usc.edu The more things change, the more they stay insane. _______________________________________________________________________________
randall@Virginia.EDU (Ran Atkinson) (12/15/90)
In article <25923@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: >>I'm pretty sure that the unanimous response will be to use either Turbo C >>2.0 or Turbo C++ 1.01, since both are fast and VERY easy to use. In article <28832@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: %Microsoft C is said to have the best optimisation on the block. In fact, empirical testing has shown that essentially all of the C compilers from major vendors (MS, Borland, Zortech, Watcom, etc.) have about the same level of optimisation. A recent article (this summer) in _Computer_Language_ gives actual code examples and demonstrates that with trivial changes to the source code any of the tested compilers can come out on top. The net result is that "optimisation" isn't much of a reason to buy a compiler. The biggest areas of differentiation are really the libraries that come with the compiler (this is where MS really doesn't perform well compared with Borland or Watcom) and the quality of the development environment (both Borland and MS are considered better than Watcom here). There have been widespread gripes posted here about problems with MS C 6.0 and a lot of folks I know who are locked into the MS compilers have decided to wait for the next minor release of the compiler before upgrading. In the past, some of us have seen DOS versions 2.0 and 3.0 and 4.0 and MS C 4.0 and 5.0 and decided that when dealing with MS it is sometimes best to wait for the X.1 version so that most of the new bugs are fixed. Borland isn't immune to this sort of problem. TC 2.00 had a number of bugs that were fixed with TC 2.01 (though the patches were widely available on the net -- Simtel20 had them). TC++ 1.00 also has had some problems which is why they are now shipping TC++ 1.01 which fixes most of these problems. I personally have used Borland compilers and debuggers for a while now and have been very happy with them both for performance and for cost. Other people have different needs and have been happy with other compilers and tools. I'm not sure it really makes all that much difference for Pascal and C compilers. Borland and Zortech share the C++ market for the moment. >> For pascal, Turbo Pascal 6.0 looks like the hot ticket -- an >> interface builder is part of the application program now. Plus you >> get access to utils such as Turbo Drive (extended memory compiler -- >> runs out of extended memroy), Turbo Assembler (more masm compatible >> than masm), Turbo Profiler (profiles function speeds and >> bottlencks), Turbo Editor (AWESOME editing environment), and Turbo >> Debugger (best debugger on the market, competed only by MultiScope). However not everyone LIKES integrated environments. I for one usually use MicroEMACS with a script that lets me invoke TCC or dmake from inside the editor and use the MKS Korn Shell and MKS Toolkit outside EMACS in order to make MSDOS as UNIX-like as possible. I find I'm much more productive this way than I would be using the integrated environment. Your preferences will probably be different -- which is the point I'm trying to make. Also, even folks who don't use Borland compilers can purchase the TURBO DEBUGGER & TOOLS and since Turbo Debugger supports CodeView executables there is no problem getting and using these other items if they are what one needs. >> The only thing that I can think of as not good about Borland >> products is that they are not Windows 3.0 compatible. Well Borland have privately demoed TC++ for Windows and indicated that they plan to have a TP for Windows product as well so that while this is true now it also will be changing. The main problem with Borland as compared with say MS or Watcom or Metaware is that they don't really support ROM-able code or protected-mode 386 code. For ROM work, I'd use MS C every time because there are fewer hoops to jump.
Nathan.Torkington@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Nathan Torkington) (12/16/90)
In article <28832@usc>, ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: |> Oooh, how I hate Windows! Imagine what would happen if someday |> Borland produced a Turbo Pascal which only worked under Windows! |> Windows almost makes the PC a Mac! Can you imagine how offensive |> that it?? Apart from making a 386 as fast as a 8088. Hmmm ... TC++ reeks of a Macintosh environment. Even to the point of having 'close-boxes' on the windows ... *gag*. "Take me home, to that command-line environment, where EMACS and make run free ..." - Nat. -- [ Death@comp.vuw.ac.nz aka Blackadder@st1.vuw.ac.nz aka Nathan Torkington ] [ "Graeme Lee ... a condom on the penis of progress" - Bob Jones ] [ This is not an official communication of Victoria University, Wellington. ]
einari@rhi.hi.is (Einar Indridason) (12/17/90)
In article <1990Dec15.232529.23187@comp.vuw.ac.nz> death@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Nathan Torkington) writes: > >Hmmm ... TC++ reeks of a Macintosh environment. Even to the point of having >'close-boxes' on the windows ... *gag*. > >"Take me home, > to that command-line environment, > where EMACS and make run free ..." > Well, there is allways the command line compiler 'tcc' :-) -- Internet: einari@rhi.hi.is | "Just give me my command line and drag UUCP: ..!mcsun!isgate!rhi!einari | the GUIs to the waste basket!!!!" Surgeon Generals warning: Masking the 8th bit can seriously damage your brain!!
bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) (12/21/90)
In article <1990Dec15.141850.3405@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Ran Atkinson <randall@Virginia.EDU> writes: /In article <28832@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: /%Microsoft C is said to have the best optimisation on the block. /In fact, empirical testing has shown that essentially all of the C /compilers from major vendors (MS, Borland, Zortech, Watcom, etc.) have /about the same level of optimisation. A recent article (this summer) /in _Computer_Language_ gives actual code examples and demonstrates /that with trivial changes to the source code any of the tested /compilers can come out on top. This is not at all true for C++ compilers, though. There are major differences in code size and code speed between C++ compilers. According to the Ladd Report, ZTC++ TC++ Run Times 107.3 187.3 EXE Size 26,480 31,476 This is for the ECOSYS benchmark, compiled and optimized for time in the large memory model. To quote from the report: "ECOSYS is an ecosystem simulation Scott Ladd wrote for his series of C++ Techniques and Applications books. The program consists of 2500 lines of C++. The program performs several million virtual function calls and creates thousands of polymorphic objects." "In both small and large models, Zortech's compiler is always faster than Borland's at producing 'debugging' programs. Since all compiles except the final few are usually of the debugging type, this gives Zortech an important advantage over Borland. While Zortech does perform slower on optimized compiles, it is uncommon to do more than a few compiles with the optimization switches on." "On the ECOSYS benchmark, Zortech produced a program that is 45% faster than Borland. Zortech produced programs that were 9% and 12% faster on the respective DHRY2 and MATTEST benchmarks. Only on the MANDEL benchmark, which is floating-point intensive, did Borland win with a margin of 8%. Clearly, Zortech's global optimizer provides a significant boost in program speed. Zortech always produced a smaller .EXE file than did Borland." Excerps from "MS-DOS C++ Compilers: A Comparison" (11-9-90) Copyright 1990 by The Ladd Group. All Rights Reserved. (303) 641-4129 /The net result is that "optimisation" isn't much of a reason to buy a /compiler. For many people this is true. But for a lot of people who are writing competitive application software, this can make a big difference. It can be the difference between a large or small memory model, between fitting in 640k or having to go to protected mode, between an application being fast enough as is or having to profile and recode bottlenecks in assembler. At Zortech, we wish to cater to the demanding professional, and have concentrated our efforts on superior compilation speed and code generation. We welcome posting of other benchmarks comparing our compilers. /The main problem with Borland as compared with say MS or Watcom or /Metaware is that they don't really support ROM-able code or /protected-mode 386 code. ZTC++ now offers a 386 compiler for use with the Pharlap DOS Extender. Watcom C and MetaWare C support 386 code and Pharlap too. Disclaimer: I work for Zortech.