Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!caip!princeton!orsvax1!drew
From: drew@orsvax1.UUCP (Drew Lucy)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Aztec C, good, bad, HELP!
Message-ID: <271@orsvax1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-May-86 09:41:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: orsvax1.271
Posted: Mon May 19 09:41:45 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 20-May-86 07:48:55 EDT
References: <276@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP> <1100@h-sc1.UUCP> <243@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> <503@3comvax.UUCP>
Organization: ORS Automation, Inc., Princeton, NJ
Lines: 35

> Cutting down Aztec C is a joke.  How many programs do you see in a store that
> even compare with it?  Let's see, there's only Lattice (C compilers).  No
> comparison.  I use Aztec C practically as much as I use my Amiga, so I figure 
> a couple hundred ($400 or whatever) is worth it.
> 
> I am thrilled with version 3.20 of the compiler, and can't say enough about
> it.  Sure it has a few bugs, but the Amiga has some too.  But look at what they
> both are:  Amiga=best computer available for < $2000 by far;  Aztec 'C' = best
> compiler for Amiga by far (at any price, native to the Amiga).  
> 
> If you don't want to pay for the best, then go ahead and settle for less.  Face
> the facts, we are in on the ground floor of a new machine, just as people were
> at one time for the IBM PC.
> 
{
> Sure there are greps and all the other unix trash (my own terminology) in 
> the public domain, but as a professional developer, I would rather not spend
> my time porting these non-trivial, file system oriented programs.  Paying
> an extra $100 saves me time worth much more than $100.  Why cry about it.
> 
> The $400 package also includes the SOURCE to the ENTIRE library, which is
> somewhat disappointing to see 1000 source files, of which 750 are all 3
> line assembler routines.  However, the flexability of being able to build
> custom run-time libraries is well worth it.
> 
> As an aside, it really is a shame to compile thousands of little files to
> make up a library, especially on floppy disk based computers.  You spend
> more time loading the compiler and assembler from disk than you do 
> compiling.  It is much more time efficient to balance the number and size
> of different source files to take advantage of the fact that once the
> compiler has been loaded, it may as well do a few more milliseconds of work.
> You don't want to recompile everything all the time, either, so there must
> be some middle ground that is reasonable (there always is).

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***