Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!rochester!ritcv!rocksvax!rocksanne!xrxns!toml From: toml@xrxns.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: re: Mark Williams C 2.0 (plus request for benchmark help) Message-ID: <136@xrxns.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-May-87 09:29:29 EDT Article-I.D.: xrxns.136 Posted: Wed May 6 09:29:29 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 8-May-87 01:27:27 EDT Organization: Xerox: EGP/CAD, Leesburg, VA Lines: 95 Keywords: the good, the bad, and the irritating i have been dinking around with MWC 2.0 for about 1.5 months now. i bought version 1.1 in january, so i had about 2-3 months with 1.1 before i got 2.0. i will not disagree with any of the things posted here about mwc 2.0 so far, but i would like to clarify one point. MW is claiming significant improve- ments in compile/link times (something on the order of 50%, i can't remember for certain right now), supposedly putting them *ahead* of Megamax in this area of performance. i spoke with their national marketing manager about their benchmarks. the bottom line is that they achieved the lion's share of their improvement in compilation speed by doing the compiles out of the ram disk. of course, the next obvious question is, how did they bench the megamax performance? without a ram disk, of course! so their performance claims are based on an apples-and-oranges comparison. their justification is that they sell the compiler+ramdisk as a package, while megamax just sells the compiler, and the benchmark reflects a "system" performance. well, i guess that's fine, but i'd also bet that 80% or more of "serious" megamax users are using ram disks acquired commercially or from the PD. further complaints: i had problems making a bootable ram disk which would install itself out of the auto folder - i plan to talk to MW about that this week. also: the installation procedures are ok for a hard disk or dual floppy system, but are an incredible, frustrating pain on a single floppy (e.g. 1040stf) system. multiple swaps *per file* are performed, and we're talking *lots* of files. there is a lot of room for user confusion. i suspect that appropriate use of a ram disk at install time could make this much more reasonable, but this is not supported by their installer. this sort of brings up another issue, the appropriateness of this compiler for "small" systems, e.g. 520 with ss drives, either 520 or 1040 without a hard disk. single sided drives are supported, but i don't think i'd want to try it. and though work on a single floppy is supposedly possible, i haven't succeeded at the install yet, and even when i do succeed a lot of the convenience of having the msh commands and everything available at once will be impaired on a single disk system. and now, after having bashed MWC for a bit, let me say some nice things. the documentation is superb, and includes tons of examples of real programs, not just code fragments. i really feel that a person could learn an awful lot about both c programming and dealing with GEM/TOS just from perusing the manual and its examples. although i haven't been using it much yet, the microemacs shipped with MWC 2.0 is enhanced to allow the compiler to toss you into the editor at the appropriate line when it detects a compiler error. the package includes source for this microemacs, as well as source for their ram disk. they do include a debugger, but it's a pretty low- level beast (looking forward to a reasonable symbolic debugger for the ST!!). and the shell, msh: while it is loaded with peculiarities (it is a strange blend of csh, sh, and god knows what else), it is a pretty reasonable tool. the important this is that it comes with *many* unix-derived tools, many more so than what is bundled with beckemeyer's $50 or so micro c shell. i really think that if MW's msh had a better history feature i would put beckemeyers shell away for good. the thing about beckemeyer is that they have all the unix stuff, but to get it all you have to buy something like four packages, at a total cost of exceeding the discount price of MWC (about $110)! oh yeah, MWC includes a pretty good "make" too, that's another $30 or $40 package from b'meyer. bottom line: i'm a big fan of mark williams' C compiler, as i suspect most programmers who cut their teeth on unix would be. they have a few warts to address, and some of their performance claims ought to be taken with a grain of salt, but their package is a class act all the way. plus it is an excellent value for the money - even if you threw away the compiler (not that i would encourage that at all), for a little over a hundred bucks you get a reasonable shell with something like 30 or 40 unix-derived and st-specific utilities, make, microemacs + source, ram disk + source, and a debugger. not a bad deal. i write a c language column for "st applications" magazine. the first half of a two-part review i am writing is in print in this month's issue (may 87). the second half, which is still in progress, will be published in the july issue. i am performing benchmarks on MWC1.1, MWC2.0, Megamax 1.1, and (if i receive it in time) the new Megamax 1.2. if anyone out there has any good benchmarks they think i should run, drop me a note and include source code. i'm not keen on the ones i'm currently using (august 83 byte benchmarks, including fibo, sieve, diskio, a sort, and floating pt) plus the dhrystone. is the savage FP benchmark worthwhile? any others? (note: this has to be in hand and running within the next two weeks or it's no good to me! so if you have input, please don't put off getting in touch). i plan to post the result of the benchmarks to this group when they're ready. i will probably have more to say about mwc2.0 and megamax 1.2 by then. if anyone wants copies of my review, you can find "st applications" on the shelf at most atari dealers (plug plug!), or drop me a mail note and i'll mail you a copy. tchuss! tom love xerox edds leesburg, va 22075 (703)729-8000 x5185 uucp: {various and seismo}!rochester!rocksanne!xrxns!toml XNS: toml:lsbg-egp/cad:xerox disclaimer: of course i'm associated with st applications, i told you so above! no connection to megamax or mark williams though! and xerox would definitely disavow any knowledge of my existence.