Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde!uunet!mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!csvax1.cs.tcd.ie!swift.cs.tcd.ie!vax1.tcd.ie!rwallace
From: rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Aztec and Lattice. Do they suck?
Message-ID: <4017@vax1.tcd.ie>
Date: 5 Dec 89 10:33:47 GMT
References: <6060@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> <13910005@hpfelg.HP.COM>
Organization: Computer Laboratory, Trinity College Dublin
Lines: 31

In article <13910005@hpfelg.HP.COM>, koren@hpfelg.HP.COM (Steve Koren) writes:
>> When's the last time you heard anyone develop something on an IBM
>> using Lattice? 
> 
>> Is there any chance of Turbo C being ported to Amigas? I own Aztec,
> 
> I consider Lattice to be far superior to Turbo C.  In fact, both of
> the Amiga compilers tend to do a better job at compiling software
> written for Unix than nearly any of the DOS compilers.  I have
> software which compiles correctly under Unix, Lattice, and Manx, but won't
> under Turbo C or even Microsoft version 5.x.  I guess it all depends on
> what you're trying to do.  Turbo C, on the other hand, compiles much
> faster.

As far as I'm concerned, Turbo C is VASTLY superior to Aztec or Lattice. Of
course, it's also vastly superior to any other compiler on any machine that I
know of. Thing is, it's so severely handicapped between the Intel CPU (imagine
having to have SIX different versions of the libraries for the 6 different
memory models! Or not being able to support 32-bit ints even as an option! And
of course a couple of Intuition windows make Turbo C's integrated environment
look sick.) and MSDOS that overall the Amiga with Aztec or Lattice is a better
development environment than a PC clone with Turbo C.

As far as I know there is no chance whatsoever of Turbo C being ported, Borland
do only MS-DOS stuff. We'll just have to wait for Aztec and Lattice to evolve
to that standard.

"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
VMS:  rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie
UNIX: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie