Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!eecae!cps3xx!usenet
From: usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Zortech and 3rd party libraries
Message-ID: <1424@cps3xx.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jan 89 14:38:16 GMT
References: <1800@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Organization: Engineering, Michigan State U., E. Lansing MI
Lines: 30

in article <1800@dataio.Data-IO.COM>, bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) says:
> In article <4800048@m.cs.uiuc.edu> rchen@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> <drawback that Zortech is incompatible with any of the existing well known
> <C compilers on MS-DOS.  Zortech is a good choice if you want to learn C++
> <but it is too primitive to do anything real.
> 
> As far as it being 'too primitive to do anything real', you need to be
> more specific. The compiler has been in use for years for lots
> of 'real' projects (including itself!). Perhaps your idea of a 'real'
> project is different from mine.

I haven't found it to be 'too primitive'. I used to use Aztec C as my
favorite C. I've never been a fan of Borland's C, although I've had
extensive experience with it professionally. I bought Zortech for my use
at home. I've compiled both MicroEmacs v3.9e and Xlisp v2.0 under both
Turbo C v1.5 and Zortech C++ v1.03. In both cases Zortech compiled
faster ( no optimization) than Turbo. The resulting executable was 
about 10K larger in both cases from Zortech, I assume this is from
library routines. The Zortech optimizer is better than anything I've seen
for code optimization for MS-DOS.

The only criticism I can come up with is it would be nice if ztc would 
look for the linker as name blink and then if that is not found search
for link. I have my machine set up with uSoft's linker named mslink and
the zortech linker called link.

John H. Lawitzke      UUCP: ...rutgers!mailrus!frith!fciiho!jhl
Michigan Farm Bureau        ...decvax!purdue!mailrus!frith!fciiho!jhl
Insurance Group             ...uunet!frith!jhl
"My other computer is an IBM RT Model 135"