Re: Which C compiler?
- Posted by lists at wordit.com
Jan 22, 2002
Robert, many Thanks for the review of C compilers. I think it would be
useful information on the web site. Considering MSVC is probably the
most widespread compiler on Windows(?), only few people would know
which other one to choose.
Btw, I'm not encouraging supporting MSVC. I think it's good you are
supporting open source and cost free compilers. I have MSVC 5.0 and
there is a bug in the linker. MS *does not* offer the service pack to
fix that bug to users of the Learning Edition like me. So you have a
product that still cost $125 at the time, with a serious show stopping
bug, and no patch. Pretty ugly don't you think?
Marcus
On 22.01.02 at 12:06 Robert Craig wrote:
>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
>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
