Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!davewt
From: davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright)
Subject: Re: Manx/Lattice ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1991 17:24:39 GMT
Message-ID: <1991May26.172439.2021@NCoast.ORG>
Keywords: manx lattice conversion compatibility library
References: <1991May26.022108.7901@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Lines: 28

In article <1991May26.022108.7901@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>conversions of Lattice programs (and getting ticked off at Lattice for
>not following the ANSI spec all the way). I'm sure other people are doing
	They do much more so than Manx, who only recently added any kind of
ANSI compliance. I don't use many esoteric features of the ANSI standard,
but I have yet to find something that SAS/C does incorrectly.
>Hows about some of us get together and write a couple of libraries that
>automate this? We'd also need blink--make and make--blink tools, and something
>to convert Lattice's __chip declarations and Manx' #pragmas.
>
>Alternatively, we could hold some Manx and SAS emplyees to ransom until
>they bury the hatchet... :->
	Or even more alternatively, you could just have people throw Manx C
into the circular file (where IMHO it has belonged for more than 3 years)
ASAP :-)
	(For the humour impared: :-))
What can you say about a C compiler that produces non-standard object modules
so you can't link with modules produced with other languages? I have been able
to link in AL modules created with a wide variety of assemblers, modules from
a version of Forth, modules from Draco, and modules from a couple of other
languages with Lattice/SAS C since day one. You can't say the same thing
for Manx. For me, the question is: Why in this day and age would anyone
continue to BUY the Manx compiler? (no :-))


				Dave