Conference hydra::amiga_v1

    A friend of mine has the full blown Manx system (probably obtained
    via nefarious channels), so while I don't have any direct experience,
    I know what he's told me, and what I've read on the net.
    
    Firstly, he's found that if your program is small (like a couple
    of printfs), the resulting executable is also small by a factor
    of about 1/4 the size of the similar Lattice code.  Of course, once
    the program starts getting bigger, the executables produced by the
    two compiler/linkers start getting the same, but even in the case
    of HACK (a fairly large C program), the Manx code is still smaller.
    
    There have been a bunch of benchmarks of Manx vs Lattice C for
    runtimes, but the Drystone benchmark put Manx at about 40-50% faster
    (don't recall the correct figures).  In addition to runtimes, I've
    also read that Manx compiles and links significantly faster than
    Lattice (it comes with its own linker).  Part of the reason for
    the faster compiles is that instead of using flat ASCII .h files
    for the system equates, you can use precompiled symbol tables which
    are smaller, and are processed faster by the compiler.
    
    There are some incompatibilities between Manx and Lattice, but I
    don't know enough about C to speculate which one is "better".  As
    far as I'm concerned, though, Manx is the clear winner.  It offers
    the following tangible advantages:
    
    * Smaller object code, so your disk doesn't fill up with a dozen
      or so of your home grown CLI commands as it does with commands
      compiled with Lattice
    
    * Faster object code
    
    * Faster compile times
    
    * Smaller disk space requirements at compile time, due to precompiled
      symbol tables.
    
    Which all means you don't get the feeling that you'd like a third
    drive to do C program development, like I do when I work with Lattice.
    The disadvantages are:
    
    * you have to shell out a significant number of bucks
    * not all public domain C code will work without some tweaking
      (although some of the major bits seem to be cropping up with
      a Manx conditional, and still others are being written for 
      Manx, so this may not be a permanent condition).
    * different compiler bug subset from Lattice.
    
    doesn't sound too bad to me.

    I have both Lattice and a full-blown Manx compiler.  I would pick
    Manx as the clear winner.  The Manx compiler does have one draw
    back: the 'small memory' model.  If you don't tell the compiler
    anything, it uses 16 bit offsets for both data and code accesses.
    This doesn't bother you if you have small code and data segments.
    But I recently wrote a program that was too large for the small memory
    model and had some trouble getting it to work with the 'large' memory
    model.  But I eventually worked it out.  The problem is that you
    have to think about it when the Manx linker begins to complain about
    being unable to reference some code or data location.  The second
    problem is that all the exec interface routines expect longwords
    to be passed and the Manx compiler uses 16 bit integers by default.
    Thus you have a choice: use the '-l' (longword) switch, which causes
    all int declarations to become longwords and suffer the fact that
    your code and data become larger, or be careful and code exec calls
    with care.  I chose the second alternative.
    
    I recently went back to work on a program that used Lattice C and
    was surprised at how slow the compiler and linker are.  Using Manx's
    precompiled include files and putting the linker libraries in ram
    really speed things up.  And my package came with a real 'make'
    program (like MMS on the VAX), a real time saver for serious program
    development.
    
    -jim

    I've heard a few whispers that Lattice will be coming out with an
    "Optimizer" for their C compiler.  I have no idea how much this
    will cost those of us who already own the V1.1 compiler, although
    it will probably be worth it....
    
    			+Ken+
    

    Any news on C compilers?
    
    The previous answered some of my questions. Do we have any other
    pro/con voices for each of the compilers?
    
    One point not mentioned in the earlier replies are the debugging
    facilities; which one is better in this respect?
    

    
    	There are no debugging facilities with either Manx or Lattic.
    I suggest Meta-Scope. It is a very good debugger that will work
    with Manx or Lattic.
    
    

    re: 6.5
    
    ??? Manx comes with a debugger called "db".  It's symbolic and works
    well for me.  It is an assembly language level debugger, not a C
    source level debugger, but I prefer that.  The next version of
    "db" for Manx V3.4 is rumored to be much enhanced.
    
    -jim

Wasn't there a big price cut by MANX not too long ago?  I had the feeling that 
they were much closer in price now.  However (not owning either) I find it 
hard to evaluate the options which do or don't come with the various packages 
and how they compare to equivalent things from Lattice.

For instance, is the cheapest MANX package useful for casual programming, or 
is the next one up needed.  With Lattice, are any of their extra cost goodies 
needed?

	Paul

    I've had my Manx Aztec C for about a year now and, while I haven't been
    giving it really heavy-duty use, I've been very happy with it.  Yes,
    it does have a debugger.  Yes, the next release of the debugger
    promises to be much enhanced (according to reports from beta version
    users).
    
    There is only one Aztec C compiler for the Amiga, so you don't lose
    any compiler features per se if you buy the cheaper model.  What
    you get for the extra cash are extras -- e.g., maybe you don't get
    the debugger or the editor (don't quote me -- I can't recall the 
    details).  You also don't get the half-disk of source code for 
    support routines.
    
    By the way, I'm not convinced that Lattice is really cheaper than
    Manx, at least not by much.  You have to look at what's bundled
    with the compilers.  For instance, you get versions of the vi editor,
    make, a linker, an archiver, diff, hd, and a number of other programs
    that, I believe, are separately bundled by Lattice.  Manx's vi (they
    call it "z") is a fairly full implementation of vi (with enhancements
    promised) -- I've been using it along with proff (Fish disk 9) as
    my word processor for a year now with no complaints.

    Every comparison I've seen between Manx's C and Lattice's shows
    the former coming out on top -- sometimes by quite a bit.  These
    comparisons don't take into account the improvements in the newly
    released Lattice compiler, but then there's likely to be a new Manx
    compiler here soon, too.  Was it Amiga World or CBM that awarded
    Aztec C the prize for best compiler for the Amiga during the first
    Amiga year?  (I think I saw it on something I was sent directly from
    Commodore.)
    
    One advantage of Aztec C is that it can be run on a one-drive system
    without swapping disks -- I precompile my include files, keep my
    libraries in ram:, and do my editing/compiling/linking on the ram
    disk.  Compile-assemble-link time for a 500-line program with plenty
    of Amiga include files is less than a minute.  My impression is
    that Lattice doesn't come close to that kind of turn-around.
    
    I don't think you'd go wrong with Aztec C.  On the other hand, there
    are plenty of folks who are happy with Lattice C, at least in its
    current incarnation.  I suspect you'd do okay no matter which you
    choose.
    
    Mike

    Clarifications on my previous note:
    
    1.  I don't think anyone pays list for the Commercial Aztec C --
    it used to be available to "developers" (no certification required)
    for a $100 discount, and I got mine for another $100 off as part
    of an introductory promotion.
    
    2.  The commercial system I got contained the following which were
    not available in the developer's version:  source to all library
    functions; make, grep, diff, Z, and several other utility programs;
    and the promise of a year of free updates (none have been released,
    however!).  The package included the compiler, assembler, linker,
    debugger, archiver, libraries, include files, example programs (public
    domain stuff also available on Fish disks), etc.  I don't know how
    this compares to the package they are currently selling.  I notice
    that some of the things included with the basic Aztec package are
    available as extras on Lattice, according to their ads.
    
    3.  At the second annual developers conference held last November
    in Monterey, CA, Aztec C received the award for "Best
    Language/Utilities".  Other recipients included Electronic Arts (Deluxe
    Paint -- "Best Overall Product" and "Best Paint Program"; Marble
    Madness -- "Best Original Amiga Game"; Deluxe Video -- "Best Graphic
    Adaptation"; and One-On-One -- "Best Game Adaptation"), Micro-Systems
    Software (Scribble -- "Best Word Processor"; and On-Line -- "Best
    Communications Program"), and Aegis (Animator -- "Best Animation
    Program").  This was published by CBM in the December edition of
    Amiga Mail (their technical support publication).
    
    Mike

    I think Manx is offered in three versions now (according to their
    ad in AmigaWorld): the 'professional' packacge (lean and mean),
    the 'developer's' package (debugger and some more stuff added) and
    the commercial package (more stuff added).
    

I stopped in at the Memory Location on Saturday and asked about the various 
Manx versions.  They claimed that although advertised, the cheap 
'professional' version has never been available.  However they are expecting 
new versions next month which may change this situation.

	Paul

    
    I'm going to finally send in my $75 for the Lattice 3.10 upgrade.
    I think I read somewhere that the update includes a 68000     
    assembler now.  If this is true do they give you the .i includes?
    Just wondering.  I might be interested in doing some assembly programming.
    
    regards
    
    steve mcafee

Re: .12

Lattice does not include the .i includes.  Also, the Lattice assembler
cannot read the MetaComCo .i files without some editing.

< Note 6.12 by PLDVAX::SMCAFEE "Steve McAfee" >
                         -< Better never than late... >-
    
!    I'm going to finally send in my $75 for the Lattice 3.10 upgrade.
!    ... I might be interested in doing some assembly programming.
    
Yeah, that's what I thought, too.  I got it and started trying to write
a printer driver.  Not only don't you get the .i's (which I 
managed to dig up), but there are many assembler features used in 
the .i's which are not supported by the Lattice assembler.  I 
came to the conclusion that I would end up having to completely 
re-write the .i's to be able to use the Lattice assembler.  I
think their intention in providing an assembler is to use in
conjuntion with their disassembler for optimizing the output of
the compiler.  I wouldn't plan on using it for more than just the
simplest tasks.  I gave up and am going to buy the "real"
assembler. 

John

BTW I think it's still worth the $75 for the update.

Re: .14

The other uses for the Lattice assembler are to tailor the startup file
for C programs or to write small routines that needed to accomplish
specific functions.

By the way, if anyone is thinking of buying the "official" assembler I
would recommend investigating buying the assembler straight from MetaComCo
rather from Commodore.  Evidently, when Commodore bought right to redistribute
MetaComCo's assembler, Pascal, and Lisp, they made up zillions of copies.
Commodore has refused to upgrade to any newer versions of the software until
they run out of stock.  Meantime, MetaComCo has made numerous bug fixes and
improvements, and are now selling the newer versions under their own name.

MetaComCo's stuff is sold at the Memory Location, and MetaComCo advertises
a mail order service in AmigaWorld.

< Note 6.15 by TLE::RMEYERS "Randy Meyers" >
                           -< MetaComCo's Assembler >-

! By the way, if anyone is thinking of buying the "official" assembler I
! would recommend investigating buying the assembler straight from MetaComCo
! rather from Commodore.  

this anyone says "thanks".

John

    Could some one tell me what the address for the Lattice upgrade
    is?  This all sounds like it is well worth the seventy five dollars.
    
      db

    
    Here is the address I sent to.  (I called lattice to get it.)
    
       Lattice
       P.O. Box 3148
       Glen Ellyn,  Ill  60138
    
       ATTN:  Update Services       Phone: (312) 858-7950
    
    Enclose:
    
        1.  $75.00
        2.  Return Address
        3.  Specify you want Lattice C 3.10 update for the Amiga.
    
    good luck,
    
    steve mcafee    

    Thanks.  Now what am I going to do with all of those work arounds
    for the bugs in the earlier version? :-)
    
      db

    	I looked around the conference and I think this is where I should
    put it...
    
    	My name is Mike Bell (writing from my bosses account) and I
    have a 500 with 1M.  I took Pascal and data structures last year,
    and I liked them so much I think I will be studying software
    engineering at UMD next year.
    
    	Anyway, I'm looking for some ideas on languages.  Is C very
    similar to Pascal?  Is it more versatile?  And, if I'm a beginning
    programmer (no applications yet!), what's the best package I can
    buy?  Can I stay with Pascal (will it handle me as I expand my uses)?
    And what can I expect to pay?
    
    I'd appreciate any info, remarks, etc.
    
    Mike

         Check around the conference for information on this, its 
    sometimes tough to find, but I'm sure people have commented on
    similar questions.
    
         The Amiga does have a variety of languages available, and
    all of them allow you to access graphics, sound, etc.  The 
    'native' language is C, and the most popular.  However, the 
    Amiga programming environment is fairly complex and using C to
    build windows, menus, etc, can be a little disheartening at 
    first.  I don't want to discourage people from using C...  
    it's great, and all I use.  But it does take some time to understand
    how the structures, routines, etc fit into the overall scheme
    of things.
    
         I'm sure Pascal is available, but don't know much about  
    it.  You could check into Modula-2, a 'pascal-type'
    language, that is fairly popular with Amiga programmers.
    I believe that their are several notes around with info on it.
    
         I think the Lattice C V5.0 is the best environment around.
    Of course, this is still debatable, but I'm very satisfied with
    it.  It runs for about $150 and contains lots of good stuff.
    A nice Symbolic Debugger, editor, Unix-style utilities, code
    analyzer, etc.    
    
         Pick up a good book on C, and see if it suits your needs.
    If you're not ready to drop the cash on a compiler, you might
    want to check out the public-domain C, or even the Draco (Drago?)
    language.  Maybe even Amiga-Basic would be a good place to
    get started writing on your Amiga.  
    
    Steve

>    	Anyway, I'm looking for some ideas on languages.  Is C very
>    similar to Pascal?  Is it more versatile?  And, if I'm a beginning
>    programmer (no applications yet!), what's the best package I can
>    buy?  Can I stay with Pascal (will it handle me as I expand my uses)?
>    And what can I expect to pay?

That's a simple enough question, but it could stir up volumes of debate.  In
then end, it boils down to a matter of personal preference. (Well, not entirely
true.  Some languages are more suited for certain types of programming, but...)

Most importantly: Find out what your school uses as it's 'basic' language.  My
university adopted Pascal as its standard, so in my case Pascal was the best
choice.  If you're teachers are giving out Pascal examples, it could place an
unnecessary strain on your learning processes to have to convert to some other
language on-the-fly.

If the school expresses no preferences, there are plenty of other factors which
can certainly influence your decision.  What type of hardware are you working
on.  (I assume an Amiga, since you entered a note in this conference.)  C is
certainly the most popular language for the Amiga.  A great deal of the
operating system was written in C (or BPCL, an ancestor of C).  And almost all
of the coding examples you run across in magazines will be written in C or in
Modula-2 (A language much like Pascal, but with the instruction set expanded
to facilitate system-type programming... address-oriented instructions, etc.).
Also in C's favor, it's becoming quite common to see the phrase "C experience
is a plus" in job listings.  This is one of the main reasons I started working
in C.  

C code is (in my opinion) a bit more cryptic and less intelligible to the
beginner.  If you do decide to go with it, you'll definitely want to pick up a
good introductory textbook and work through all the examples.  "The C
Programming Language" by Kernighan & Ritchie (ISBN 0-13-110163-3, published by
Prentice-Hall, Inc.) is widely accepted as the C programmer's 'bible'.  It may
be a good place to start.

On the downside, almost any compiler for the Amiga is going to be expensive.  I
recently purchased Lattice C V5.0 for $195.00 mail order.  I'm pleased with the
package.  It includes an integrated editor (i.e. you can compile and fix errors
without ever exiting your edit session) and their CodeProbe debugger (lets you
single-step through your C programs, looking at the source code as it gets
executed.  Also allows you to change variables (and code too, I think), set
breakpoints and watchpoints, display the equivalent machine instructions, etc.)
But any way you look at it, $195.00 is pretty expensive for home computer
software.

Hope this has helped some.


					John