Conference hydra::amiga_v1

    I called Lattice and Manx asking for product info.  I asked the guy 
    at Lattice whether C-SPRITE could be construed to be a source code 
    debugger.  He said no, but they've got a debugger under development.  
    Also, the Manx SDB demo disk isn't available yet.

    - Cliff

    
    
    	I can see someone wants to start a war, so I'll help.
    
    I have used Lattice V3 and MANX version 3.4 . I will agree that
    MANX now has a better set of development tools. I find that if
    you have a hard disk ( or big RAM disk ) that the compile times
    are not that much different ( unless you write huge programs ).
    
    One thing is much more important than everything else. The compiler
    MUST produce the correct code.  In using each compiler I have
    found that Lattice has produced the correct code or given an error.
    I can't say this for MANX. I have sent days tracking down a problem
    only to find a compiler bug. In one case, I declared an array too
    large for the compiler ( I would expect an error message ). The
    compiler created code that would not work. In another case my
    program was correct but MANX produced the bad code ( error in 
    removing temp variables from the stack ).
    
    
    	For me I will not use MANX again.
    
    		Steve Peters
    
    

    again, dont have the usenet posting anylonger, but a recent comparison
    of the 3.10, and 4.0 versions of the compiler showed (if I can remember
    right...;-) about a 5 % sppedup in compile times, and a 20% reduction
    in code size, and some (varied, or can't really remember) improvement
    in performance
    
    Never used Manx, and am still waiting to really check out the 4.0
    version I got last week...you know sometimes we have to do actual
    work;-)
    
    scott.
    

    re: .2
    In a recent issue of _Amazing_Computing_, Jim Goodnow, the Manx
    developer, admits that Manx version 3.4 was buggy, and brings up
    some of your specific points.  The current version, 3.4b, supposedly
    has all bugs fixed.  Also, a few months ago, patch files went out
    on Usenet and other on-line services.  Steve, do you have the current
    or a fixed version?
    
    Customer support is a Manx weakness and a real plus for Lattice.
    
    re: .3
    The speedup was between different versions of Lattice C.
    
    re: .1
    Manx version 3.6 has been delayed, probably until the beginning
    of next year.  So, anybody who claims to compare performance today
    is talking nonsense, or is comparing the _new_ Lattice against the
    _old_ Manx.  The Source Debugger is similarly not ready.
    
    When I was trying to choose between brands, several people told
    me that Lattice was closer to the emerging ANSI standard, while
    Manx was more Unix-like.  Manx has historically produced better,
    faster code, but was more idiosyncratic.  Until recently, Manx did
    not test its compilers against a standard test suite.  Lattice has
    historically been much more responsive to complaints and suggestions.

    I suspect that as the Amiga market grows larger, the two brands
    will move closer together in price and performance, and other companies
    (such as Borland, Microsoft or Mark Williams) will port PC or Macintosh
    compilers to the Amiga.

    Both companies have products that are strong in some areas, and are
    working on their weak points.  I can't really get excited about
    compiler wars when the worst flaws in each product have already been
    fixed. For me, minor personal preferences and cost decided the
    question.
    
    Wes Plouff
    New Manx Owner

    re .-1

    What were your personal reasons?  Those can be significant, too.  For
    example, some people love Borland's programming environments, other 
    people find them too restrictive.  That's a matter of personal 
    preference, but it's worth hearing nevertheless.

    - Cliff

    > What were your personal reasons?  Those can be significant, too.
    
    And quite subjective.  I did not have _any_ experience with either
    compiler, and had to rely on meager facts from advertising, plus the
    opinions of others. The "personal" reasons weren't expanded on because
    they were just that -- reasons which made sense to me but might look
    pretty foolish to other people. 
    
    How about this: after carefully weighing to pros and cons of Lattice
    and Manx, I found no clear winner.  So I made a pretty arbitrary
    choice.  When you go through the same process, I think you will also
    make an arbitrary choice for reasons you wouldn't tell your priest,
    much less this notesfile.  ( :-)
    
    Wes Plouff 

Has anyone tried the PDC compilier on one of the latest FF disks??
Rumour has it that it will produces decent code, but has a few bug's in it.

What would you need for libraries/include files with this compiler? I think
a Developer disk I stole a peek at once had the include files....

Robb

Are there any PD C compilers on the net ?!?

If so, which is "best" (oops, that could cause some controversy, concidering
the previous replies :-) )

and where is it? !!!

(This is fantastic. I thought I'd get a real culture shock - having to
BUY software - when I'm used to the "DECNET SOFTWARE STORE" :-)  being at the
ends of my fingers... Not so, I've already found all sorts of stuff I
just can't wait to DL. Now all I need is a disk with KERMIT or saomething...

Unfortunately there is but one PD 'C' compilier I know of, and that is on 
Fred Fish Disk #110 (see note 712.2 for description). There is an effort
underway to put all the F.F. disk's on the E-NET, but at least where I live, it
is cheaper to send Fred $7 for a disk then to upload it at 1200bps.

Robb

Does someone have FF110?  Could they upload the compiler???

BTW. I do have a �VAX at home, so up/down loading from Amiga to
VAX goes at 9600/19200 for me. I'd be more than happy to offer
upload services :-) (that is, as soon as I get the necessary things
like KERMIT (i guess?) and such...)

John

And I'm also putting all the net stuff on a disk on WJG:: which
can be offered as another library site. (As long as the network
access doesn't eat my CPU too much!)

    I will put FF110 on the net. I should have it up in a day or two.
    
    		Steve Peters
    

re .7

By personal comments, think of a Consumer Reports article that 
compares cars.  Each car has a data sheet and feature list that you 
can look over, but then the reviewer throws in personal comments 
like, "after driving each car over 1,200 miles, the windows on X seem 
to vent better than those on Y" or "the driver's seat was too 
slouchy" or "it's noisy as hell inside".  Those are worthwhile 
personal comments that may or may not be significant depending upon 
the reader.

By the way, Lattice sent a data packet on their compiler.  There's 
too much to type in, but I'll send a copy to anyone who wants one.  
Send me a mail note with your mailstop.

- Cliff

    I guess it's time for an update here.
    
    I bought the MANX C v3.6 compiler and the SBD or "Source Level
    Debugger".
    
    I had an interesting time trying to determine if the SDB is included
    in the Developers version.  Here are the answers I got:
    
    	Memory Location: no 75$ extra.
    	OmniTek, Tewsbury:  "Yes! Included"  I said "Are you sure? 
    			     That's not what the other guy said."
    			     Reply "Can't tell will call back."
    	Software Shop:  no $60 extra.
    
    Of course the "Source Level Debugger" does cost extra.  The MANX
    C package includes something called "Symbolic Debugger", not the
    same as the SDB, the cause for all the confusion.
    
    After using the SDB for a few weeks I've fallen in love with it.
    It's great.  I couldn't live without.  I can hardly remember "the
    old days" when bugs in my code would lead to GURU messages.  Now
    I see the offending C code on my screen plus the error number.
    
    You can set break points, example:
    
    > BS &RefreshScreen               
    
    I made a "DEBUG" gadget which causes a Debug routine to be called.
    I set a breakpoint at the debug routine.  So whenever I need it,
    I click on my programs debug gadget to
    get back into the debugger at look around at my C structures.
    
    Examining C structures is easy.  You specify the variable you want
    to examine using C syntax.   Say you have a pointer to a struct
    windowPtr.
    
    > p windowPtr   (this give you the value, an address)
    
    > p *windowPtr  (this gives you the structure definition with all
    		     the values filled in (even if a value is another
    		     structure!))
    
    
    A source level debugger is a must for anyone who occassionally makes
    mistakes when writing C code.  It's a great way to learn C.  Just
    compile someone elses program and step through it one line at a
    time.  It's a great way to learn about the Amiga OS routines for
    the same reason.
    
    I thought the MANX manual was pretty good.  
    
    I'd like to hear about the Lattice source debugger when it comes
    out.  Also, the software shop is expecting MANX 3.7 updates any
    day.
    
    This is a great product.  It came with the libraries for the 68881
    chip,  Unix MAKE (haven't tried it), a vi like editor (nothing special,
    I prefer EMACS), and lots of other things.  The debugger has restored
    my sanity.
    
    		-Paul Wisner
    
    

    
>    I'd like to hear about the Lattice source debugger when it comes
>    out.  Also, the software shop is expecting MANX 3.7 updates any

Really!?! Is Lattice comming out with one?

John    
    

    Yes.  I believe Lattice is working on "a debugger".  I'm not sure
    exactly what type of debugger they're talking about but I think
    they intend it to compete with what MANX offers.
    
    Also from the debugger you can evaluate C expressions like
    
    	xvar = calc(xvar,3L)
    
    this will asign to xvar the value returned from calc().  This level
    of interactiveness is what makes BASIC programming easy.  Well...
    you still have to compile your code. 
    
    Lattice may produce better code.  But I can get alot more done in
    the MANX environment.

    I couldn't find the answer to this question after poking around in here
    for a good while.  I'm finally ready to upgrade from 3.6a to 5.0x. 
    Unfortunately, I've lost my postcard with the ordering info.  Can
    someone post Manx's phone # for me?
    
    Thanks,
    -Gary