| I received my free copy of the premier issue a few days ago (with disk).
Although I haven't read it thoroughly, I have to disagree about the
technical content being good. The review of Dragon's Lair states that you
can install it on your hard disk as long as you set aside a partition
for it. Of course, this is misleading because you can only do this if
you own a particular brand of hard disk (I forget which one). I would be
annoyed, if not angry, if I bought the game thinking I could install it
on my hard disk based on this review.
In the review of Lattice C++ it consistently refers to the product as a
compiler. It is not a compiler but a preprocessor, as the article itself
describes. This indicates to me a lack of technical understanding of
the subject matter.
Anyway, I don't feel the magazine plus disk are worth the subscription price -
$40 for 6 issues.
Rich
|
| Re: .3
Like Zen, sometimes you don't know if a technical article shows a lack of
knowledge, or a deep understanding of what is going on:
>In the review of Lattice C++ it consistently refers to the product as a
>compiler. It is not a compiler but a preprocessor, as the article itself
>describes. This indicates to me a lack of technical understanding of
>the subject matter.
Compiler experts usually agree that the ATT C++ translator is a compiler
(Lattice C++ is a port of ATT's code to the Amiga). The structure of
the translator is that of a compiler: the translator does full bookkeeping
and semantic analysis on the source program. The translator does a
compiler's job of converting one language to another.
However, the output language (more-or-less K&R C) of the ATT translator
resembles greatly the input language (C++). Therefore, many people do
erroneously call the translator a "preprocessor," because they think
that it must be possible to convert C++ into C using pattern matching
and other simple string analysis (very much like the Unix C preprocessor
"translates" C with macros into C without macros). However, C++ is
a very complex high level language that requires all of the resources
of a compiler to translate into C. (How hard is it to write a C++
compiler? Well, the usual estimate is take the amount of effort it
takes to write a C to assembly language compiler, and multiply that
amount by three!)
At one time (years ago), C++ was a much simpler language, and it was
nothing more that a preprocessor. This has added to the confusion:
It once was a preprocessor. It looks like a preprocessor. Because
of historical reasons, people who know better sometimes call it a
preprocessor. It is no wonder that most people talk about the
ATT C++ "preprocessor" (I even call it that myself).
I haven't read the article. So I don't know if the author didn't
know what a preprocessor was, and so that is why he called Lattice
C++ a compiler, or if he does know what a preprocessor is, and so
that is why he calls Lattice C++ a compiler.
|
| I felt sort of short changed, too. I guess I was guilty of not
looking at the fine print, and didn't realize there are only six
issues published in the year. I got a lot less than I expected.
It makes looking for Fred Fish disks seem like a more attractive
possibility, because the price of this is top $$$. I like things
kept on a simple level since I am the furthest thing from a computer
whiz, and I found accessing the programs more difficult than just
simply clicking on the icons, I am use to.
Cheers,
Rick
|