Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:19948 comp.sys.mac.programmer:2293
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!jwhitnell
From: jwhitnell@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: LSC 3.0 Gripes or Commendations?
Message-ID: <8648@cup.portal.com>
Date: 1 Sep 88 20:21:39 GMT
References: <12121@cisunx.UUCP> <11062@dhw68k.cts.com>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 27
XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.3098

Roger L. Long writes
|My main gripes with Think-C are:
|        it generates some of the worst code I've seen a compiler generate 

You havn't looked at the output of too many compilers :-).  The first
version of the megamax compiler wins that award hands down.  Take a look
at the code it generated for switchs sometimes if you want a good laugh.
The code generated by LSC is relativly clean and minimal.  The problem is
that it doesn't have either a peephole optimizer or a real optimizer to
back it up.  This leaves it with lots of code that could be eliminated.

|   
|        it sure would be nice if I wasn't locked into using their editor (i.e.
|        if the thing were modular enough that I could write my own "shell"
|        and "editor" to look and feel the way that I want.  

There is a lot of talk about a solution for this "problem" in LSC 4.0. 
Solutions that have been discussed in public include using C as a macro
language (compile by the compiler), allowing new editors too replace the
old in LSC and communicating via IAC with a 3rd party editor under MF.
Which solution they will choose and when 4.0 will be avaiable is anybodies
guess.

--
Jerry Whitnell
jwhitnell@cup.portal.com
..!sun!cup.portal.com!jwhitnell