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Both these statements are out-of-date.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