Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!orc!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!granite.pa.dec.com!mwm From: mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Aztec C vs. Lattice C Message-ID: Date: 17 Jul 90 20:37:22 GMT References: <544@beguine.UUCP> <1312@metaphor.Metaphor.COM> Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 28 In-Reply-To: djh@metaphor.metaphor.com's message of 13 Jul 90 18:22:45 GMT In article <1312@metaphor.Metaphor.COM> djh@metaphor.metaphor.com (Dallas Hodgson) writes: Jim Goodnow recently left Manx, so who's to say what future support from Manx will be. In the process of trying to find a speaker for the next BADGE meeting, I called Manx to see if they would be willing to address this subject at the meeting (answer: no. - anyone wanna come give a talk?). They pointed out that Jim had done less than 1/3rd of the work on 5.0, so the change isn't as major as it looks from the outside. Further, Jim would still be working with them on the 68000 product. He wasn't gone, the relationship had just changed. Back on the topic, I prefer Lattice because since at least 4.0, it seems to catch more compile-time errors and have more informative messages. From my experiences with Manx and watching the net, Manx has more bugs. Lattice has also always had excellent support, which doesn't seem to be true of Manx. I don't expect this to change with SAS. SAS is at least acting like they'll send someone to BADGE. It may not pan out, but we'll have to see....