Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!uc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!nosun!qiclab!m2xenix!quagga!csgr From: csgr@quagga.uucp (Geoff Rehmet) Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 Subject: Re: Working with FST Modula-2: Opinions, anyone? Keywords: modula, modula-2, fst, compiler Message-ID: <1990Oct27.074944.22759@quagga.uucp> Date: 27 Oct 90 07:49:44 GMT References: <1990Oct25.030545.16556@coyote.uucp> <1990Oct25.195628.324@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown RSA Lines: 35 In <1990Oct25.195628.324@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> draper@cpsin2.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) writes: >In article <1990Oct25.030545.16556@coyote.uucp> jmh@coyote.UUCP (John Hughes) writes: >> >>I've been using Roger Carvalho's Fitted Software Tools Modula-2 >>compiler for quite a while now, and I've come to like it. Other > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Well I like it too. I've used FST for a couple of months now, and have >few complaints. At Rhodes University we are using FST for our courses in Modula-2. Since the middle of my first year I have been using JPI, but I still consider FST to be a good product (considering it is shareware). The compiler isn't a heck of a lot slower than JPI (version 1.something), but as mentioned the linker does take it's time. I do find it a bit difficult to trace run-time errors with FST (JPI takes you to the right spot in the source text), but you can learn to live with that. Unfortunately the size of FST executeables is a bit on the large side. For serious programs I prefer to go for JPI, because the smallest FST executable I've managed to create is about 20K (2 or 3K with JPI). On the whole though, I think that Fitted Software Tools should keep up the good work! Geoff Rehmet. -- Geoff Rehmet | Internet: csgr.quagga@f4.n494.z5.fidonet.org Rhodes University | csgr@quagga.ru.ac.za (soon - I hope) Grahamstown | UUCP : ..uunet!m2xenix!quagga!csgr -------------------+ Uninet : csgr@quagga