Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!ashtate!dbase!drc From: drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 Subject: Re: TML M2 system Message-ID: <275@dbase.UUCP> Date: 3 Dec 87 15:09:54 GMT References: <2092@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> <273@dbase.UUCP> <307@oophost.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Ashton Tate Development Center Glendale Cal. Lines: 81 Keywords: modula2, Macintosh Summary: Beg to differ In article <307@oophost.UUCP>, keith@oophost.UUCP (Ed Keith John) writes: > In article <273@dbase.UUCP> drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) writes: > Dennis, > > I've read your review of TML Modula-2 and I have to correct a mistake on your > part. VAL or any other intrinsic funtion does not incur any overhead in code > generation. How could you have thought that? I drew that conclusion from working with 1.0, the only one that I have received or heard of from TML since it came out of beta (and I WAS one of the beta sites). Looking at the generated code with TMON, I saw jumps to glue routines at every turn. I have since learned that the glue was used for almost every- thing but what I thought it was used for, my mistake there. > > About SemperSoft and TML, I use TML, and I prefer it over Semper. I've run > my personal benchmarks and I found that overall there was no difference > between the two compilers in code speed or code size. These benchmarks will I'll be glad to send you the conversions of such things as TransSkel, Trans- Display, and TransEdit for both compilers. The differences in the sources are few, the IMPORTs and the use of type transfers in Semper vs. VAL in TML. I think that you will find the Semper compiler to generate significantly smaller applications. The current Semper compiler, 1.05, is only slightly faster than TML in the code that it generates, up until now I agree that there was no discernible difference in code speed -- I can't compare it to 1.2 of TML since Tom has not sent me any notification of the upgrade. > be published in APDAlog in January. SemperSoft does compile faster than the > current TML compiler Ver. 1.2, which does include the latest Inside Mac traps. > TML and Semper are about neck and neck in comparison. The differences are > mostly astetic. Semper allows lowercase keywords and Pascal strings. Its > VAL does not work according to Wirth, for conversion between different sized > types. TML supports FileSystem and Streams and supports the Performance > analysis tool in MPW, Signal Handler. Anyway, I've ranted enough. The full > article in APDAlog covers a great deal of the differences between the > compilers. I haven't found any place that Semper allows lowercase keywords; however, they do supply an alternate set of IM libraries and modules which are lower-cased for people that don't want to remember that it's SetPort rather than Setport, etc. These have nothing to do with the language definition. The fact that it allows Pascal strings I consider to be a major benefit since I write code that calls the ToolBox a lot, and the ROMs expect Pascal strings. If I were writing plain vanilla Modula-2 programs that use FileSystem and Streams rather than Macintosh applications which use the FileManager, I would be glad of that distinction, but I don't and do not deem it a consideration for someone who is going to be writing Macintosh programs, DAs, and INITs. SemperSoft also supports the MPW Performance Analysis tool. In short, I still prefer Semper's compiler for what I do (as you say, personal preference). If Bob will allow type-transfer functions and does get the code size down on toolbox-intensive applications, I will recommend it over TML. I like Bob and Tom. They put out a quality product with good documentation, and got it out first. Nevertheless, for the things I do, Semper does the job a little better (and a whole lot easier). I get extremely aggravated when I have to type VAL conversion after VAL conversion to compare things. It obscures the source and tires my fingers. Again, if you are talking about which Modula-2 compiler would I recommend for someone who wants to write the same code (essentially) on a number of different systems, I would recommend TML without question. The inquiry, however, was for the compiler recommendation for programming the Mac. I take that to mean, "Which one does the best job of creating real-life Macintosh applications and does it with the minimum of fuss?" On this point, I still say that it is the Semper compiler as there are too many contortions involved with the TML interface to the toolbox and too much glue overhead. Enough ranting from me as well. Take care, Dennis Cohen Ashton-Tate Glendale Development Center dBASE Mac Development Team -------------------------- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed above are all mine, based on my preferences and experiences. Any connection to those of any corporate entity are purely coincidental. > I think that Semper has a nice compiler, but its syntax has taken great > liberties with Wirth's definition. I don't like using CHAR and PASCHAR > order to work with the Macintosh tool traps. I perfer null terminated strings > but it becomes awkward to use both types in a Macintosh program. I'd rather > let TML's libraries do the conversions for me. My Personal Preference,of > course.