Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ho95b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ho95b!ran
From: ran@ho95b.UUCP (RANeinast)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari
Subject: Re: REAL Ataris/Deep Blue C
Message-ID: <303@ho95b.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 13:54:10 EST
Article-I.D.: ho95b.303
Posted: Mon Feb  4 13:54:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Feb-85 01:34:29 EST
Organization: AT&T-Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 35


>4. Has anyone out there got 'Deep Blue C' or whatever; I'd like to use 'C'
>   on my Atari, and I'm not impressed by C/65. Appraisals, please.

I've got it.  Not too bad (though my version has a bug in
setting graphics modes).  However, I find I don't use it much.
Most things for which I want quick development, I just do in BASIC.
Two reasons:
   1. Compile time.  I write something, start compiling, and take a nap.
      Later (much later) I then have to link it all.  Take another nap.
      Oops.  I really want the output to look like this.  Take two
      more naps.  What if I change that?  Take two more naps.
   2. Run speed.  When I ran a program, it didn't seem all that fast,
      so I tried running
      10 look at atari built in clock
      20 FOR I=1 TO 1000
      30 FOR j=1 TO 1000
      40 NEXT J
      50 NEXT I
      60 look at atari clock again
      70 print difference
      80 END
      and a C equivalent.  Deep Blue C was faster by a factor of 3.
      Somehow, I thought a compiled vs interpreter should do better than that.
Anyways, C usually isn't worth the trouble.  If I'm going to the trouble,
I'd just as soon do it in assembly, and make it *fast*.




-- 

". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."
Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95c!ran)
AT&T-Bell Labs