Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!acns.nwu.edu!jln
From: jln@acns.nwu.edu (John Norstad)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Think against MPW interface war (was Re: MPW wish list)
Message-ID: <3718@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 90 21:52:28 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University
Lines: 23
References:<3689@accuvax.nwu.edu> <14112@reed.UUCP> <1046@watserv1.waterloo.edu>

In article <1046@watserv1.waterloo.edu> bmwrkshp@watserv1.waterloo.edu ( 
Wrkshp Id - Sys Design ) writes:
> But I'm sure THINK C is still an order of magnitude
> faster. Don't know what that linker is doing. Sure takes its own
> sweet time even on Mac II's.

As I understand it, one of the reasons is that MPW's linker is much 
smarter.  For example, it lets you direct individual routines within a 
single module to different segments, and it eliminates dead code.  I'm not 
sure about all this, though.

> I would probably use MPW 99% of the time if it weren't for the fact
> that the C compiler is broken. Even the updated C compiler
> included with the C++ package still has bugs.

I've heard this from other places too (e.g., the guys at Wolfram).  But 
I'm up to 16,000 lines of pretty hairy C code in Disinfectant now, and 
I've yet to encounter a single compiler bug.  Maybe because I'm a reformed 
Pascal fanatic, I don't write as ugly code as the rest of you guys :-)

John Norstad
Northwestern University
jln@acns.nwu.edu