From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!info-cpm
Newsgroups: fa.info-cpm
Title: Aztec C
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.225
Posted: Sun Dec  5 03:32:05 1982
Received: Mon Dec  6 01:59:45 1982

>From dag@UCBARPA.BERKELEY.ARPA  Sun Dec  5 03:31:04 1982
Received: from UCBARPA.BERKELEY.ARPA by UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA (3.227 [10/22/82])
	id A02504; 5-Dec-82 01:42:24-PST (Sun)
Received: by UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA (3.227 [10/22/82])
	id A04017; 5-Dec-82 03:31:53-PST (Sun)
To: RMS.G.HNIJ.MIT-OZ@Mit-Mc, info-cpm@BRL
Via:  Ucb-C70; 5 Dec 82 4:43-EST
Via:  Brl; 5 Dec 82 4:46-EST
Via:  Brl-Bmd; 5 Dec 82 5:27-EST

Aztec C is a good overall C Compiler, though BDS C is better
for those who like all sorts of neat goodies like a symbolic debugger
and a package that is easier to use.  Aztec is slightly faster in execution
to BDS C and can work with M80/L80 stuff.  It compiles MUCH faster
than Whitesmiths (A monkey could hand-compile code faster than 
whitesmiths.)  For further time information on both compilation
and interpretation, see my articles in November/December 1981
and Jan/Feb 1982 for reviews of BDS C and Whitesmiths, and Nov/Dec 1982
for reviews of Aztec and C/80.

Overall, I prefer to program in BDS, but if I needed full C usage
including register variables, I would use Aztec without a second
thought.

David