🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10814@duke.cs.duke.edu> gleicher@duke.cs.duke.edu (Michael Gleicher) writes:
>(I know this debate has been had before, but I'm a new convert to the
> Mac Universe)
>
>Can anyone tell me the relative merits/demerits of Aztec C (or some other
>inexpensive development environment) vs. LightSpeed on the Mac ][.
>
>LightSpeed is what everyone seems to recommend, but Aztec says it has a
>symbolic debugger (any good? I'm used to codeview on a PC and dbx on UNIX)
>make (does LSC have this?) and unlimited data size (this is important as
>I hope to port a prolog compiler from UNIX eventually, does LSC let you
>have huge memory spaces? - I want to have as much of my 5 megs for heap
>as possible)

	I've heard that the Aztec symbolic debugger doesn't exist, but
I've never seen it, so I can't be more definite than that.

	LightspeedC has *more* than make. It's got full automatic project
management, which means that you'll never have to write a makefile.

	LightspeedC allows you to use the full memory available on any
Macintosh, as do most sane-minded Mac development environments. LSC is
subject to some limitations, namely a 32K size limitation on statically
declared arrays. However, in C this can be easily worked around.

There are no catches in LightspeedC.

		--Rich




**The opinions stated herein are my own opinions and do not necessarily
represent the policies or opinions of my employer (THINK Technologies).

* Richard M. Siegel | {decvax, ucbvax, sun}!harvard!endor!singer    *
* Customer Support  | singer@endor.harvard.edu			    *
* Symantec, THINK Technologies Division.  (No snappy quote)         *