🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 18 Jun 91 21:11:21 GMT Tom Almy said:
>I just received my "free" upgrade, and used the half price coupon for
>Top Speed C. Some first impressions:
>
>1. The package is much bigger (even before installing C). More memory
>   models has enlarged the libraries, and there are new extended memory
>   versions of ts and vid.
Sigh, doesn't surprise me, but I'll probably have to wait till I get a
new machine to install it. (I just ordered my M2 upgrade and a 1/2
price C++ (I figured the C++ manuals should be worth that).


>2. The environment is somewhat nicer, yet basically compatible with the
>   old version.
>3. The old .prj files don't work. There is now a .pr file that has
>   new, and even more confusing, syntax. The confusing array of options
>   has now expanded into the project file.
Gee, I can't wait <sarcastic grin>


>4. A couple of my sample programs have balooned in size about 20%.
>5. MGDEMO.MOD crashes my machine when run. In fact none of the graphics
>   programs work. Their example C graphics program runs fine. I'm going
>   to try and track this down, but it is a bad omen.
>6. The WNDDEMO program comes in both Modula and C versions, and the C version
>   is *much* faster. It is also about 10% smaller. Again the optimization
>   bias is leaning even more toward C and away from Modula.
Could you run a couple of simple tests (like time to do n printf's
against time to do n WrStr's)?  I'm interested in just how bad this
bias is.  It is my impression that JPI wrote the low level C calls and
is calling them via M2, so a call to WrStr invokes (at some level) a
call to printf.  This means that JPI M2 programmers have to paid for
the overhead of the transition calls plus the overhead of printf.
I noticed this first in there heap management stuff.


>7. Documentation is much better.
Gee, that should be too hard.  All Greek text has been changed to
French <grin>.


>I have a number of additional programs to compile, but it looks like this
>version is a step backwards in code size and execution speed. And it takes
>11 Megs of my disk!
Is that just the M2 compiler or both the C and M2 compilers?


>I will try the C compiler on some "gut buster" code I've got here, and will
>also see how it works with Microsoft Windows. I only wish they hadn't gone
>the multi-langage route. I'm afraid this is going to be another "the jack of
>all trades is master of none" package.
I feel that the multi-language route is fine, but they just have a
decidedly poor implementation (mainly involving 'language bleed' where
none is needed or wanted).

Greg

Greg Granger                         BITNET: USDGOG@VTVM1
Consultant, USD                    Internet: USDGOG@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
Computing Center, Va Tech