🚀 go-pugleaf

> What is the best Modula-2 compiler for PC?
> What Modula-2 compiler do you use?
> 
> -= Joan Fsibein =-
>  FisJoan@ibm.net
> Club OS/2 #364

Well, I started off on Logitech (CP/M-86, DOS and OS/2). It died.

Used FTL (CP/M-80, MS-DOS, heard of various 68K variants) for a while 
(still do for some embedded work). It died.

The Borland/Echelon (CP/M-80) compiler successfully died without my 
assistance.

At present I'm using TopSpeed/Clarion for PC and embedded work (386 
protected-mode). It may not be the best (says he to avoid arguments- it's 
been a long day) but there is a fairly large community of users. Be 
warned, though, that whilst it supports OS/2 v1 at present that continued 
development in that area is uncertain.

Mark Morgan Lloyd
mark_tbu@cix.compulink.co.uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or 
colleagues]

P.S. I hate spelling checkers :-)

Here in my department (Electronic Engineering) we use the StonyBrook QuickMod
compiler, which is not much cop to say the least. Perhaps the StonyBrook
Professional is better? This compiler does come with an excellent programming
environment, which makes the poor quality of the compiler a shame.

-- 
  _________    _______________________________    _________
 < ""/_\"" \  /                               \  / ""/_\"" >
 <  (.o.)   \/            Jake Last            \/   (.o.)  >
 <   v~v    /\   J.Last-93@student.lut.ac.uk   /\    v~v   >
 <_________/  \_______________________________/  \_________>

Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
>
> Joan Fsibein wrote:
> >
> > What is the best Modula-2 compiler for PC?

I suppose that by PC you mean IBM-compatible PC?

Mocka or GPM. First get Linux; it's the only decent OS available for
those shitboxes.

> > What Modula-2 compiler do you use?
>
> Well, I started off on Logitech (CP/M-86, DOS and OS/2). It died.
>
> Used FTL (CP/M-80, MS-DOS, heard of various 68K variants) for a while 
> (still do for some embedded work). It died.

I used the CP/M-80 version for a while. It was pretty good except for
the bug in the assembler and its non-implementation of monitors (the
author said it was pointless because Modula-2 monitors are "degenerate
monitors").

I heard that the MessySlop version evolved into the shareware FST
Modula-2.

----snip----

P.S. I hate spelling checkers :-)

And even so, you spelt it correctly. Mmm.

Ned

On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, J.Last wrote:

> Here in my department (Electronic Engineering) we use the StonyBrook QuickMod
> compiler, which is not much cop to say the least. Perhaps the StonyBrook
> Professional is better? This compiler does come with an excellent programming
> environment, which makes the poor quality of the compiler a shame.

The QuickMod compiler was never built to be a good quality compiler.  It 
was built to speed prototyping.  You then use the Optimizing compiler 
for final work.  When I was on my IBM PC-XT, I used the QuickMod 
compiler (and called it slow) for all minor projects under development.  
Unfortunately, some of the libraries I was using wouldn't link under 
QuickMod, so I had to endure the 10 minute wait while programs using 
those libraries compiled.  Now that I have a faster computer, I haven't 
touched QuickMod for years.  StonyBrook is a good company, though.  They 
do a good job with their compilers.  I think you are just using the 
wrong tool for the job.

I tried all of them and learned to like the Stony Brook professional
development system. It produces the smallest and fastest code if
properly tuned. It sticks to the rules as much as possible with DOS. N 
Now I am waiting for a 32bit version for Windows95. Will there be one?

J.Last wrote:
> 
> Here in my department (Electronic Engineering) we use the StonyBrook QuickMod
> compiler, which is not much cop to say the least. Perhaps the StonyBrook
> Professional is better? This compiler does come with an excellent programming
> environment, which makes the poor quality of the compiler a shame.