Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:28315 comp.sys.amiga.tech:3407
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!oliveb!amiga!boing!dale
From: dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: C Compilers
Message-ID: <601@boing.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jan 89 04:06:26 GMT
References: <496@geocub.UUCP> <30997@vax1.tcd.ie> <3271@amiga.UUCP>
Reply-To: dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck)
Organization: Boing, Milpitas, Ca.
Lines: 29

In article <3271@amiga.UUCP> jimm@cloyd.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes:
>In article <30997@vax1.tcd.ie> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes:
>)In article <496@geocub.UUCP>, olva@geocub.UUCP (Olivier Vayssettes ) writes:
>)> Comparative inquiry between MANX & LATTICE C compilers.
>
>)I have used both compilers and I personally find Manx C vastly superior.
>)	....
>
>I think you have to make a new comparison now that Lattice 5.0 is out.
>
>Basically, I think rwallaces analysis was completely valid, until Lattice 5.0.
>Based on the support issue, I'd say the tide has turned.
>
>	jimm

I have to agree with jimm here. We've been oscillating between Manx and
Lattice for our first release of the Xlib and toolkits for the Xwindow
programmers library. Right now, Manx still chokes on much of the source
code from the standard distribution whereas Lattice slogs along just fine.

I'm not interested in modifying the source code to make it work with any
particular compiler. It is a support issue. I don't want to have to
remodify the source code when the next release of X comes out. So comforming
compilers get my vote of support.


-- 
Dale Luck     GfxBase/Boing, Inc.
{uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale