Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!dgbt!netfs.dnd.ca!rutgers!psuvax1!psuvm!wtw101
From: WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu (Bill Warner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Okay, you Amiga Types, its time to bash your amiga. :)
Message-ID: <91037.162624WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 91 21:26:24 GMT
References: <57522.664073195@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca>
 <91031.190832JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> <91031.215406WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1991Feb6.051955.14232@NCoast.ORG>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 57

In article <1991Feb6.051955.14232@NCoast.ORG>, davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright)
says:
>        Personally, I think Turbo C bites. If you want an integrated system,
>SAS now provides almost all of this (compile from within the editor, get
>highlighted errors, hop to next error, recompile inside editor, etc.),
>But that environment sucks for any multi-module application (and if you
>aren't using more than one module, you probobly aren't doing it right),
>and it chews up excess memory to hold the editor and a copy of the source
>file at the same time it is compiling it.
>        Also, the C compiler itself seems to be not as good as the SAS
>compiler, it seems to be less ANSI compatible, doesn't do as good of
>checking of the code for non-compatible functions, etc.
>        And out of several debuggers I have used (Turbo C, CodeView (Unix),
>etc.) the SAS CodeProbe is easily the best, with full mouse support,
>command line recall, ARexx macros, resizeable source and command windows,
>etc. I have not found anything that the Turbo debugger does that CPR doesn't
>do, or couldn't easily be made to do by writing a simple macro (And writing
>macros is NOT something you should think you shouldn't have to do. That is
>MS-DOS thinking that you need to have everything inside the program, taking
>up space whether most users want/need a feature. SAS provides at least 20 or
>so macros, and writing your own is trivial. And by adding features via macros
>you don't take up memory for a function you may not use all the time,
>and you can extend/change the function yourself, without having to
>recompile the debugger itself.)
>
>
>                                Dave
>
>

First off, you are probably refering to old versions of Turbo Pascal and
Turbo C.  Take a look at TP 6.0 and the latest version of Turbo C++. You
have to realize that I use the compilers for algorithm design, not for the
design of some Amiga or IBM specific application.  That's where SAS or Manx
fall short.  Can Manx or SAS compile a 1000+ line program in seconds (not
10's of seconds).  Can it do it that fast on an 8mhz 68000 (eqiv to a 8mhz
286)?  This is very important to me.

Second, the T debuggers are very nice (yes, even a moron could use them, but
features are not lacking).  The Manx SDB is nice but it just doesn't flow
as well as the Turbo Debuggers.  I can't comment about CodeProbe since I
don't have it.  Super-advanced features are not needed in Algorithm design.

The integrated environment is nice, but thats is not as important to me.

Many of your above points are well taken.  But I'm not
going to argue as to which compiler is better, but I will say that
for whatever reason Turbo C and Pascal are simply more productive for me
than their Amiga counterparts.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                          Chris