🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <544@beguine.UUCP> Scott.Maxwell@samba.acs.unc.edu (BBS Account) writes:
>
>     Uh, I'm a little confused by what I've read regarding Lattice C v. Aztec
>C. Everybody seems to say (a) Aztec usually produces faster code, (b) Aztec
>usually produces the code faster (that is to say, it compiles faster),
>(c) Aztec is cheaper, and (d) Lattice is more widely used.
>     Now, that can't all be right -- unless Lattice has *vastly* superior
>advertising or something, and I can't imagine that would be enough to make the
>difference. Assuming I'm right about points (a), (b) and (c), though, why the
>heck is (d) true? Does Lattice offer better support? What have I missed?

Amiga commissioned Lattice to write the first commercially available Amiga
compiler back in '85. This was to lend credibility to the machine, as
Lattice was the leading C company for the PC at the time.  (this is no
longer the case!) For in-house development, Amiga was using the Greenhills
compiler on the Sun which is probably still the best compiler available.
Many developers were doing development on AT's using Lattice's 1.0 cross
compiler and downloading the result to the Amiga over the parallel port, as
there were no Amiga hard disks at that time. As far as I'm aware, Lattice's
cross-compiler has never been updated.

Jim Goodnow had beta copies of the first Manx compiler available for purchase
at the 1986 Amiga DevCon 2 in Monterey. I bought my copy at that time. Most
developers flamed Lattice endlessly until 5.0 came out, because Aztec
always had the fastest compile time, produced much smaller executables, and
supported precompiled headers.

It was over a year after Lattice release 5.0 until Aztec released theirs. Folks
were grumbling about the lack of support, and a lot of people switched over
to Lattice. Both compilers are pretty similar now, although some folks might
enjoy Manx's convenient #asm directives over Lattice's chip_mem keywords. I've
tried both, and still use Manx. No matter what Lattice does, Manx still has
the feel of compiling "tighter, smaller and faster". Jim Goodnow recently left
Manx, so who's to say what future support from Manx will be.

>Scott Maxwell (CSMAXWEL@ECUVM1.BITNET or Scott.Maxwell@samba.acs.unc.edu)