[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::languages

Title:Languages
Notice:Speaking In Tongues
Moderator:TLE::TOKLAS::FELDMAN
Created:Sat Jan 25 1986
Last Modified:Wed May 21 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:394
Total number of notes:2683

195.0. "C compilers and thier micros" by SSDEVO::TEDONE (Sidd Finch fan) Fri Jul 15 1988 12:46

    Hello,
    
    I have asked this question in a few other notes files, and I was
    pointed to ask this question in this one.  If you have read this
    in other files, I apologize.
    
    Has anyone used a C compiler on a non-DEC processor?  We are looking
    at Intel processors and the J-11.  I know about DECUS C for the
    J11 and T11.  But if you have used a C compiler for another micro     
    I would be interested in knowing what micro it was, what C compiler
    you used, and where I might be able to get the compiler. 
    
    I thank you very much.
    
    Matt
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
195.168000STAR::CAPPELLOFCarl J. AppellofMon Jul 18 1988 10:412
    I believe the DECrouter 200 folks use a C compiler which runs on
    VMS and produces code for a target 68000.
195.2DSSDEV::JACKMarty JackTue Jul 19 1988 13:502
    If by Intel you mean 80x86, MS-DOS Microsoft C is probably the best
    thing you will find for those architectures.
195.3C for MS-DOSTIS::OLIVAWed Jul 20 1988 11:0011
    Microsoft has enhanced its version of C and they now call it Quick
    C.  It is supposed to be a nice development environment, I've haven't
    had a chance to use it yet though.
    
    Borland has a version called, as one would guess, Turbo C that works
    under MS-DOS.  I have used it and found it to be a good development
    tool.  
    
    Hope this helps 
    
    Oliva
195.4CASEE::LACROIXOne gun, One bullet, One footSun Jul 24 1988 11:088
    Re .3:

    Quick C is not an enhancement of MS C, but a product targeted at the
    low end segment of the C compiler market; Microsoft's (good) answer to
    Borland. MS C 5.1 is targeted at people who do 'real development'. You
    get Quick C for free along with MS C.

    Denis.
195.5TIS::OLIVAMon Jul 25 1988 16:1714
    
    
    Re .4:
    
    
    Opps you're right - Quick C was added to MS C not vice versa, my
    apologies.  As to how good an answer it is to Borland's Turbo C, 
    I really couldn't say as when I was using Turbo C, Quick C had yet
    to be released.
    
    My point, however, was that there is an alternative to Ms C available.
    
    Oliva
      
195.6Some more compilersPULMAN::MACKEmbrace No ContradictionsTue Aug 09 1988 16:4134
    Manx Aztec C has done quite well in the benchmarks, although their
    source debugger is of the old glass-teletype style (like VAX Debug in
    line mode) and lacks watchpoints.  Its big drawback is the pricetag
    ($500 for the version with the library sources, although my wife got
    hers through a sub-license for $189).  I've been told it is the closest
    in many ways to Unix.  It's also available on the Mac, Amiga, and Atari
    (at a much lower price!) if you like the Motorola architecture better. 
    
    Let's C (from Mark Williams) has a nice symbolic debugger (csd)
    but the code speed isn't production quality, and it doesn't have
    that hard-to-describe solid feel of a professional tool.  (There
    may be a Let's C for the Mac.  I don't recall.)
        
    Turbo C has a generous library but no debugger whatsoever so you're
    stuck with strategic printf's.  (With 1.5, you even get reasonable
    adapter-independent graphics for "free".)  It's code speed is probably
    quite similar to Let's C, although I've never benchmarked them.  I've
    read rumors either in the trade press or on a BBS that Borland is
    working on a hot new debugger, but I don't remember where I read it... 

    We have all three, and all three seem to generate acceptable code.
    
    We don't have Microsoft-C, but if we're serious about ever getting into
    C++, we'll probably have to buy Microsoft-C or at least Codeview
    sometime soon.  (All the precompilers assume Microsoft-C or Lattice-C
    and do debug using Codeview.  This looks like a general trend.)  I've
    resisted so far because I hate having to pay a premium price to buy
    software from the people who made the operating system.  (Of course, I
    don't see any problem with folks doing the same thing on VAXen. :-) ) 

    Meanwhile, we've gone off and bought Smalltalk/V and an Ada compiler
    for it, but that's the topic for another note... 
    
    							Ralph