Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!davewt
From: davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Okay, you Amiga Types, its time to bash your amiga. :)
Message-ID: <1991Feb11.043700.711@NCoast.ORG>
Date: 11 Feb 91 04:37:00 GMT
References: <91031.215406WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu> <1991Feb6.051955.14232@NCoast.ORG> <91037.162624WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Lines: 50

In article <91037.162624WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu> WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu (Bill Warner) writes:
>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
	Yes. I am presently working on a new game for the Amiga that will be
a space version of Empire, and some of the modules are over 1400 lines already.
I don't know about Aztec, but SAS compiles them in about 5-6 secs, and I
include a ton of header files (and I don't use precompiled headers).
	And the link phase for the library, which right now consists of 5 or
six modules, all over 900 lines each, and searching a maximum of 280k (as
reported by the linker) links in less than 4 secs, so althogather you are
talking about at the most 10 secs when one 1400 line module is changed and
has to be recompiled.
>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.
	I doubt it, can't help you there. But then I don't do anything to
speed it up (like using precompiled headers, which I hear can knock off 3
or 4 secs minimum on a compile with lots of include files. SAS is so fast
that the client programs link in under .01 secs (reported as .00 by the
linker), which is generating about 50k of code.
>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 Manx debugger is primitive compared to CPR. It doesn't look like
they have upgraded it (or at least it's user interface) since the first
version of it I saw. CPR has always been quite nice, but now the latest SAS
version under AmigaDOS 2.0 looks even better, and was smart enough to
recognize my enlarged screen, and use it fully.
>
>The integrated environment is nice, but thats is not as important to me.
	And neither is it to me. In fact, I don't use it at all. But it
is there, if you choose to use it. The one thing I DO use is the fantastic
configuration program. You can click on gadgets to select compile options,
and see real human-readable text, instead of having to remember what -M0
means.
>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.
	Might this not be true because you are more familiar with them? Which
have you worked the most with. I have found that there is usually a certain
amount of time that must pass when working with something new before you begin
to take it's features for granted, let alone use them to the fullest. But I
can truthfully say that I sorely miss the SAS environment when I have to
work on Unix & DOS at work.


			Dave