Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!riley
From: riley@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Aztec 5.0 Impressions
Message-ID: <9663@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Date: 4 Feb 90 01:10:10 GMT
References: <5096@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Reply-To: riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley)
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY
Lines: 25

In article <5096@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes:

[description of lots of Manx 5.0 features deleted]

>Still missing is common subexpression elimination.  That would be very nice,
>but I can see how it's really tricky.  Oh well.  (Does Lattice do it?  If
>it does, I probably have to switch.)

Lattice does do some common subexpression merging.  The compiler even does 
some simple cases without the optimizer turned on.

>I don't know if it can be said that Manx has now surpassed Lattice or rather
>that they have merely caught up with them, but it's nice to get the improved
>version and retain a known environment.

Your list of features looked a lot like a feature list for Lattice 5.0,
with a few exceptions.  It sounds like Lattice may still have an edge
in optimization (or maybe not).  Lattice isn't ANSI compliant in a few
places, so Manx may have an edge there.  Manx probably still has a big
advantage in compile time.  If Manx 5.0 is reasonably bug free, I'd
give them a small edge in the compiler wars, but it's pretty close.
Isn't competition wonderful?

-Dan Riley (riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley)
-Wilson Lab, Cornell University