OpenEuphoria

Re: Which C compiler?

• Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Jan 22, 2002
• 350 views

Marcus writes:
> Since I'm checking out the Euphoria language primarily for speed
> concerns I'd also like to try the C translator. The big question is
> which C compiler to use. I have Mingw32 installed, but it is not
> supported (mingw is gcc ported to Windows. See www.mingw.org).
>
> What are the pros and cons of the supported compilers?

Windows:
       Lcc - pro: small download
              - con: the -O optimize option is a bit flaky. You might
                have to turn it off in a few cases if it gives error messages
              - con: even with -O, the code produced is not as fast
                 as Borland or Watcom
              - con: .dll's produced by the Translator only work with
                main programs produced by the Translator for Lcc
              - 99% compatible with Euphoria interpreter

       Borland - pro: very fast compiles, with good code produced
                     - con: download is larger (and you have to fill out a form)
- pro: .dll's created by the Translator with Borland will
                     work with the
                       Euphoria interpreter
                     - 99% compatible with Euphoria interpreter
 
       Watcom - not sold anymore, open source version is not available
                         for new users yet
                       - pro: very good code produced
                       - pro: 100% compatible with the Euphoria interpreter,
                         including any Euphoria .dll's that you create

Conclusion: If you don't already have Watcom, get Borland.

DOS:
             If you don't have Watcom, get DJGPP.
             DJGPP's code quality is almost as good,
             and it's 99% compatible with the Euphoria interpreter.

Linux: 
            No choice - use GCC, which is part of a normal Linux installation.

Regards,
   Rob Craig
   Rapid Deployment Software
   http://www.RapidEuphoria.com