Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!njin!princeton!udel!mmdf From: frank@morgan.com (Frank Wortner) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: GNU c and c++ under MINIX (long) Message-ID: <4061@louie.udel.EDU> Date: 14 Sep 88 15:23:26 GMT Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU Lines: 49 Bill Rosenkranz writes: >there has been a lot of discussion in the past regarding the huge cost of >source for the minix c compiler. has gcc (the GNU c compiler) and possibly >g++ (the GNU c++ compiler) been ported to minix? since it is essentially free, >this sounds like a very attractive alternative to the existing situation. "Huge" is, in my opinion, an exageration. The source costs $99, not much more than the $89 that Minix itself costs. Admittedly, I have a steady, rather well-paying job, so I can fork over a hundred dollars without much pain. Other people may not be so lucky. Still, in comparison the cost of many other common bits of software and hardware -- two to three thousand dollars for a nice PC system comes to mind -- $99 is cheap. I also don't believe that GCC is "essentially free." There are a few hidden costs involved. First is media. If I want GCC, I will have to supply disks and/or tapes to someone who will make a copy for me. Next is a possible copying fee. Remember, the FSF license mandates that one give away software, but one can recover duplication costs. Even FSF charges a nominal -- actually $150, I believe -- fee per tape. Another cost is the price of computer time on a machine powerful enough to host GCC cross- development. Finally, there's the price of your time. Someone has to do the work. Perhaps some or all of these costs are nominal in some cases, but "free" is another matter. Even if all of these costs are reduced to zero, there is still the possibility, make that the probability, that GCC won't fit into the 64K per program limitation of "stock" IBM PC Minix. (Wow, ten years ago we all thought 64K was more memory than anyone would ever need!) GCC and GNU were not meant for "small" computers. This does not rule out cross compilers, but that's a frustrating and expensive way to play. Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking GCC. Although I have no personal experience with it (yet), I'd be willing to bet that it's a good piece of work. It probably produces better code than the Minix ACK C compiler. The source is probably more useful. Minix C source does not include the tools used to generate tables for the table-driven front and back ends of the compiler, while a complete GCC distribution probably includes everything. The Minix C system is, in my opinion, a good buy for those who want to upgrade a 1.1 or earlier system, and for those who want a totally compatible cross compiler -- recompiling the source on a Sun or VAX is very easy. I've done both, and, to that degree, I've gotten my money's worth. For me, the ability to "plug in and play" was worth the cost. Frank " ... and he stepped down off his soap box, wondering if anyone near him had any overripe tomatoes ... "