Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!cbmnlux!ecl014!ronald From: ronald@ecl014.UUCP (Ronald van Eijck) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Manx/Lattice ENOUGH IS ENOUGH Message-ID: Date: 28 May 91 17:10:11 GMT Article-I.D.: ecl014.ronald.3706 References: <1991May26.022108.7901@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991May26.172439.2021@NCoast.ORG> Organization: R&R Software Lines: 27 In article <1991May26.172439.2021@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: > 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 Ever tought about the fact that people just like the manx c compiler over the lattice one. I'm not interrested in linking my c code with other languages except machine code and I can program that inline. So for me It's manx all the way and sas has to do a hell of a job convincing me to switch. BTW does sas have precompiled includes yet? -- +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ronald van Eijck {eunet!}hp4nl!cbmnlux!ecl014!ronald | | | | We do the impossible at once for a miracle we need a little more time | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+