Conference hydra::amiga_v1

Re: .0

I have a copy of the latest version of Lattice C.  It seems to be an
impressive package: it comes with an optimizer, development tools,
an editor which communicates with the compiler, and the source level
debugger.

The debugger is bundled with the compiler;  the Manx debugger is extra.
The debugger uses a true Amiga interface: menus, pointing with the mouse,
windows, etc.

First Disclaimer:  I haven't really had time to play with this package yet.
So far I've written one small program (uniq a'la Unix), and didn't
bother to use the debugger.  I did try out the debugger with a
Lattice supplied example program, and it seemed pleasant to use and
to be similar to VAX debug in basic features.

The traditional strengths of Manx C are:

	Manx produces smaller faster code.
	Manx compiles faster.
	Manx is a more practical development system for small Amigas
	   (Amigas with less than a meg of memory and only one floppy)
	And recently, Manx's Source Level Debugger

The traditional Lattice C strengths are:

	Better support for modern features of the C language (function
		prototypes, structs as first level objects, ...)
	Default "int is 32 bits" environment (this may be nothing more than
		a personal preference of mine).

Over time, the two compilers have gotten much more similar.  Previous
to this last release of Lattice, I would have offered the following
advice:  If you have a minimal Amiga, but Manx.  If you have an
expanded Amiga, the choice is basically between Manx with its
source level debugger versus Lattice with its better ANSI C support.
(Manx's advantage in code generation had shrunk over time.)

With the latest Lattice release, I believe Lattice may have pulled
cleanly ahead of Manx.  Lattice now has a global optimizer (rare in
any PC C compiler), and so Lattice will probably produce better code.
Lattice now has a source level debugger.  And Lattice seems to have
implemented much more of the ANSI C standard.

This state of affairs could be volatile.  Manx is hard at work on
a new version.  The last couple of years has shown that each release
of both Manx and Lattice tries to top the other's compiler package.

Second Disclaimer:  I haven't fully evaluated Lattice's latest release,
although I am impressed with the features I've seen so far.  I have never
owned Manx C, but I carefully evaluated it before I purchased my first Amiga
C compiler.  I've followed the various updates made to Manx C.  I originally
picked Lattice because it was closer to ANSI C, had various features
that at the time made it easier to port VAX C code to it, and I wasn't
too worried about code speed/size.  I've been happy with Lattice and
their update policy.

    Re: .1  -  For MANX this is essentially what I have heard about
    	    it.  For Lattice, this is what I have seen from my own
    experience.  The global optimizer seems to work real well.
    
    Re .0: I would buy the C compiler hat has the features that I need
    	   now and stick with it, unless the leapfrogging ever stops.
    	   I do believe that Lattice is now ahead of MANX in every way
    	   now.

    
    Also, C++ is available for/from Lattice.  I doubt that the C++ release
    from lattice will work completely with Manx.

In MAY14::ATARIST is described a FREE C compiler, with sources for the
Atari-ST.  I mention it here because some enterprising soul might just
want to modifiy it to generate Amiga formated code - or perhaps use it
as a corss-compiler on the VAX.

The price is right anyway.

I got my Manx C compiler almost 3 years ago, when there was a
substantial difference in Manx's favor.  I've been happy with it, and
there are a lot of serious Amiga developers who have found it quite
satisfactory (or so I infer from the USENET wars that occasionally flare
up). 

I've never used the Lattice compiler, so I can't comment on it.  (I'd
certainly trust Randy's opinion, though.)  My guess is that both are of
such high quality that you can't go wrong with either. 

Mike

P.S.  I haven't tried out the source level debugger yet.  Manx's old
debugger left a lot to be desired, including documentation.  But the new
one has gotten very positive reviews. 

P.P.S.  It used to be that the software packaged with the Manx compiler
was a lot more extensive.  I don't know if that's still the case.  There
is also the option of getting source for the runtime libraries.  That
has proved useful to me in a few cases (though maybe that was because 
the documentation was incomplete...).

    
    Well that certainly gives me a lot to think about.  I have an
    `expanded' Amiga.  A 2000 w/20Meg HD and 3 Meg internal.  I am really
    just now starting out with C, I have used Benchmark for the past
    year or so.  I haven't had the need yet for library source, but
    I can see where it might come in handy when I get into the heavy
    stuff.  I guess since there is so much leapfrogging you could say
    that one system would be ahead of the other about half the time,
    so you really can't loose.  I'll probably pick the one with the
    bet price at the time.
    
    Thanks again.
    
    Dick.