Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!bu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!nikhefh!t68
From: t68@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Jos Vermaseren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Freewhare hurts the NeXT (was Re: Desktop publishing)
Message-ID: <1192@nikhefh.nikhef.nl>
Date: 2 Apr 91 22:43:54 GMT
References: <1446@toaster.SFSU.EDU> <1991Mar30.063733.27117@news.cs.indiana.edu> <14485@life.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: t68@nikhef.nl (Jos Vermaseren)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Nikhef-H, Amsterdam (the Netherlands).
Lines: 40

In article <14485@life.ai.mit.edu>, petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes:
>                                 At the moment, the GNU C compiler is
> most likely the best there is, and it is still classfied by us as Beta
> software.  We are approaching v2.0, which will include C, C++ and
> Objective-C (Thanks NeXT!).  In my experiences, the GNU Compilers
> generate better code than ANY compiler, including the one Sun is
> selling for some $4000.
>  
> + Chris Petrilli
> | Internet:  petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu
> + Insert silly disclaimer drivel here.

I did recently some real hackers tests on GNU versus Turbo-C on the Atari.
I have a program FORM (symbolic manipulation program for truely big things)
(available by anonymous ftp from nikhefh.nikhef.nl) which gives exceptionally
compact code on the atari, so much so that the code part of the execuatble
is 10% shorter than what GNU produces.
So I hacked some special startup code so that I could run the atari executable
on my NeXTstation for the real test. (including relocation and redirection
of some routines to the NeXT system calls).
The result was that the executable of the atari is nearly 4% faster than what
the GNU compiler generates.

Of course this doesn't mean that I don't appreciate what GNU is doing. It is
as far as I know the second best 680x0 compiler if you go by size of the
code and speed of execution. It is hard to make a similar statement about
reliability, but it ranks definitely high in that department. The (only) 4%
increase in speed makes it hardly worth the trouble to keep going up and
down with sources and executables, so I am quite happy with GNU.
I am also happy with gdb. It has some features that were sorely missing
in dbx like 'print t[15234]@10' which is kinda hard in dbx.

The problem with high quality free software is that it discourages
professional programmers to work for that platform. There isn't anything
wrong with that as long as enough good programmers can work on a GNU
grant. Barring that you may wonder how all those other programmers are
going to survive. It is just a social point. I am still happy with GNU.

Cheers
Jos Vermaseren