Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd70!fortune!hpda!hplabs!sri-unix!smith@Nrl-Aic.ARPA From: smith@Nrl-Aic.ARPA Newsgroups: net.micro.cpm Subject: Re: C for small machines Message-ID: <12140@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Apr-84 19:33:00 EST Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12140 Posted: Mon Apr 9 19:33:00 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Apr-84 08:52:58 EST Lines: 37 From: Russ Smith In order to continue a (not so) fiery discussion... First, I didn't mean to imply anything about the "reviewer" of the C compilers mentioned in the previous note. Once again my fingers moved faster than the diplomacy in my head... However... The C/80 compiler is written in C/80 (like BDS is written in BDS C and SMALL C is written in...). So are a text formatter similar to U**X nroff, a LISP interpreter, and a number of other things available from Software Toolworks. These are marketed programs so I'd have to assume they were written by "professional" programmers. When one compares the intrinsic functionality of C/80 and BDS C one finds that they are remarkably similar, especially if one considers that the libraries of stuff provided by BDS can be obtained from simtel20 (among other places). Once more I'd like to mention that C/80 performed "better" in execution benchmarks by a number of independent testers (if this means anything). The C/80 2.0 compiler is a C compiler well suited for "professional" purposes. I understand that Version 3.0 has more of the standard features that one expects from a "professional"s tool. At the price being asked, THIS reviewer considers it to be not only inexpensive, but one of the better C compilers available on the market, and, widespread use of BDS not withstanding, "better" in many important ways than said compiler. Typed from the keyboard of a multi-year "professional" computer scientist, Russ P.S. Sorry about that folks, but the 'at least "professional" programmers' aside in JB's previous note got my scruff up...