Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!gillies
From: gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: C and large data model
Message-ID: <76000083@uiucdcsp>
Date: 18 Dec 87 14:52:00 GMT
Lines: 33
Nf-ID: #R:<8712152132.AA10832@decwrl.dec.c:-35:uiucdcsp:76000083:000:1624
Nf-From: uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies    Dec 18 08:52:00 1987


I played with a few compilers (mostly I looked at manuals) at our
university software evaluation room yesterday.  I got this impression
from a brief reading of the manuals:

1.  Manx (Aztec) C seems *very* UNIX-oriented.  The manual gave me the
impression the product was not well integrated.  For instance, you are
supposed to run things from a UNIX-like JCL shell.  A lot of the
PC-like MANX manual is devoted to describing the UNIX shell they have
reimplemented on the mac.

2.  Turbo Pascal seemed to be a very fast compiler, but it didn't look
like it had facilities to build large programs -- e.g. it was set up
to compile one huge program file in memory, and that is all.
Quickdraw documentation is very sparse.

3.  I haven't been able to look at a lightspeed C or Pascal compiler.
I've seen a little bit of Lightspeed's Pascal manual, and it looks
like it has an integrated *make* command with functionality similar to
UNIX's (but for compilation only).  Is the C *make* stuff similar?  I
am attracted to the lightspeed manual because it seems to document
quickdraw/system calls extensively (can this manual substitute for
large hunks of "inside macintosh"?)  Also, the latest update
supposedly provides full Mac II color quickdraw/multifinder (.h)
files/compatibility?

I have often heard that LightspeedC is one of the best C compilers for
the Mac, but I'm wondering if other products surpass Lightspeed in
some small areas (but not overall).  I'd appreciate any info on this
subject.  And will summarize if there is interest.

Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois
            {gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu}