Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!hao!ward From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac Subject: Re: mac C compilers Message-ID: <1285@hao.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 22:56:02 EST Article-I.D.: hao.1285 Posted: Fri Nov 30 22:56:02 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 06:07:44 EST References: <1882@nsc.UUCP> <20800001@smu.UUCP> Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 28 > > He had not recieved the Manx compiler yet, but I talked to them and > they do not have the capability yet to create a Macintosh type executable > file (you must use their shell). > Also it (Megamax) is the only > compiler out yet that has a librarian and the ability of the linker > to link in just the routines that are called (this explains the small > code size). Both these statements are out-of-date. Manx's Aztec C can create an application (Versaterm was written with Manx C) and has a librarian and library searching linker. I have run them both, but have not run benchmarks. The speed and power of the compilers "seem" to be about equal. It looks to me like the trade off is in price versus development tools. I would not want to have to make a choice between these two compilers. I have not had the need to call the Manx people, but I did call the Megamax folks, and they were helpful in the extreme. Researched my problem, then called back in a very short time. -- "The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct." Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307