Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!tll
From: tll@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Tal Lewis Lancaster)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: New Eiffel-like OOP language
Message-ID: <1991Jun21.170630.3480@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 21 Jun 91 17:06:30 GMT
References: <1991Jun16.063222.1304@csis.dit.csiro.au> <1991Jun16.145750.14475@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> <15546@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 26

cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes:

>In article <1991Jun16.063222.1304@csis.dit.csiro.au> dave@csis.dit.csiro.au (David Campbell) writes:
>>G'day!
>>
>>I think we can give up hope of compiling anything serious with Lattice C,

>I've compiled the entire X distribution with the Lattice C compiler, is
>that "serious" ? 

I believe the point is that neither SAS nor MANX can be considered "industrial
strength" compilers.  That is to say a compiler for all situations with minimal
hassels.  Chances are, I think people will have less trouble porting something
if they use gcc or DICE.  I still try to use SAS when I can (primarily for
the source level debugger which neighter gcc or DICE have).  But there are 
times when SAS just won't cut it and I have to use gcc.  I have only run
across 1 bug with gcc,  which is a lot better than what I can say for SAS and
MANX.

>--
>--Chuck McManis						    Sun Microsystems
>uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: <none>   Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM
>These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
>"I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"

Tal Lancaster