Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!dsac.dla.mil!dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil!nfs1675
From: nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: SAS/C Compiler Version 5.10 for AmigaDOS Upgrade
Summary: It is consistent numbering
Keywords: In response to my previous posting, and further replies.
Message-ID: <2441@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: 29 Aug 90 11:01:44 GMT
References: <13385@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus
Lines: 27

In article <13385@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hutsonda@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dwayne Hutson) writes:
>                                             . . . .   Yes, they could have
> changed this new release to 6.0, that is what I said, it would be more in
> line with what Lattice set its numbering system to be in the first place.
> 

The step up from 5.05 to 5.1 IS consistent with the numbering system that
Lattice used. One of the early major releases was v3.03 (which I started
with) and then the next major release was v3.10. If I recall correctly this
upgrade was handled similar to the current one. The later steps to v4.0 and
then v5.0 were not only major releases but essentially new products. The
v4.0 was an apparent complete rewrite (by SAS instead of Lattice) and v5.0
made it a complete programming environment, with the inclusion of the 
previously seperate Lattice Companion (LSE editor plus many other utilities) 
and the CodeProbe debugger.

The bottom line is, if you don't want to buy the new upgrade, don't buy it.
This is America, etc.

---Mike,


-- 
A man said to the Universe "Sir, I exist!" | Michael Figg  DSAC-FSD
"However," replied the Universe,           | DLA Systems Automation Center
"The fact has not created in me a          | Columbus, Ohio
sense of obligation."- Stephen Crane       | mfigg@dsac.dla.mil  CIS: 73777,360