Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!lzaz!lznv!psc
From: psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Mix C comments??
Summary: so-so
Keywords: C, compilers
Message-ID: <1269@lznv.ATT.COM>
Date: 21 Jan 88 18:45:51 GMT
References: <3948@ames.arpa> <3790@cbterra.ATT.COM> <3424@ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 27

In article <3424@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, apxpecc@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Jeffrey P. Horvath) writes:
> Has anyone had experience with the MIX C compiler and utilities.  Can
> this $40 compiler, debugger, editor package be a bonified compiler
> for a serious C programmer?  I would appreciate any comments.  How
> about comparisons to Turbo C??

The compiler was unspectacular, the editor was pretty bad, and the
debugger was pretty good.  The run time library is *enormous*.  You
can overlay it (keeping your .EXEs small but impossible to distribute),
or include it (making your .EXEs huge).  Slow code.  Large model was
due Real Soon Now when I had the compiler.  It's probably out by now.

The version I had used a proprietary object file format, which means
you can't use third party libraries unless you have C source code.  The
"translator" only worked in one direction (theirs to .OBJ, I think),
and wasn't very useful.  The debugger was actually written by someone
else.

I suspect you'd be better off with Turbo C 1.5 (and someone's debugger;
e.g., Codeview from MASM 5.0), or Quick C.

> Jeff Horvath, ihnp4!ihlpf!apxpecc

-Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc
AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com
I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind.
(The word is "bona fide", by the way.)