Media Share 13/mediashare_13.zip/mediashare_13/ZIPPED/PROGRAM/SNPD9404.ZIP/WHICH_C.TXT

Text File | 1994-04-03 | 11KB | 232 lines

.I 6 2
companies that have survived have done so because some number of people think
each of them makes the "best" compiler.
.D 7 2
.I 11 3
Additional recommended reading are the C/C++ compiler reviews appearing in PC
Magazine. PC Mag's reviews for many years were highly slanted and suspect,
but in the past 2 years, have become commendably objective and even-handed.
.I 39 54
challenges the industry leader, Watcom, in many cases. It's also the only
remaining C compiler which can run effectively on small or older machines
without extended memory (SC++ can also, but is limited to *very* small
programs).



MICROSOFT VISUAL C++ (VC++)
---------------------------

Microsoft's professional compiler now comes in two versions with the same
name. The profession version replaces Microsoft C/C++, version 7.0. The
regular version replaces Microsoft Quick C for Windows. The primary
difference is the price and the extras since each requires at least a 386
processor, 4 Mb of *available* extended memory, and a DPMI server such as
Windows 3.1. If you don't have the machine resources, you can't use VC++.

On the plus side, VC++ is an excellent C++ compiler and generates executables
which may not always be smaller than Borland, but usually execute faster.
Microsoft's C compilers are still the standard for PC C compilers and it
shows in the ready availability of 3rd party libraries supporting it. Support
for Windows programming is excellent with tools only rivaled by SC++ (which is
shipped with licensed copies of VC++'s MFC 2.0 class library).

Compile times with full optimization are still quite sluggish, but using the
quick compile option can be provide acceptable results.


BORLAND C++ (BC++)
------------------

BC++ carries on Borland's tradition of providing excellent bang for the buck.
The latest release (3.1) of their professional compiler is an attractive
alternative to shops also considering VC++. BC++ isn't as demanding as VC++
and only requires a 286 and 2 Mb of *available* extended memory to run. A full
32-bit version is currently available for OS/2 2.1. Windows programming
support is also quite good, but has been leapfrogged somewhat by VC++ and SC++
for the time being.

Borland's tools are uniformly excellent, but the compiler still suffers a bit
in comparison to the industry's technological leaders, Microsoft, Watcom, and
Symantec - although the gap is closing. As with VC++, it's an excellent C++
compiler and enjoys widespread support among 3rd party library vendors. Like
all Borland compilers, ease of use was a design priority, all oriented to the
excellent IDE.

Borland recently alienated many of their loyal customers with the release of
BC++ 4.0. In addition to the normal version x.0 bugs that we all expect, the
new version came with no DOS IDE, vastly slower compilation times (with no
apparent increase in optimization to justify the slowdown), and an odious new
license agreement that their lawyers quickly rescinded in the face of the
massive desertion of corporate clients. They're working hard to get folks to
like them again, but for the first time in their corporate life, they have
seriously dissatisfied customers and aren't quite sure how to handle it.
.D 40 16
.I 60 6
TC++ is to Borland's C++ compiler targeted at the hobbyist market. The latest
version (TC++ 3.1) raised quite a stir when Borland released it requiring at
least a 286 processor and 1 Mb of *available* extended memory above the
normal 640K DOS limit.  Many hobbyists running on older XT's, or machines
without the excess memory capacity have therefore failed to upgrade to the
new release.
.D 61 6
.I 69 5
and good supporting tools. Based on the facts of BC++ 4.0 cited above, it has
become the compiler of choice for many Borland loyalists.


SYMANTEC C++ (SC++)
.D 70 40
.I 111 77
Symantec C++ (nee Zortech C++) was the industry's first C++ compiler, but fell
behind in tracking the C++ language spec. Bought out by Symantec in 1991, the
C compiler was always excellent and now its C++ compiler rates among the best.

SC++ supports DOS, Mac, Unix, Win32s, and NT (OS/2 was supported in previous
Zortech releases and may be again) using an extremely powerful new object-
oriented Windows-hosted IDE. It includes excellent libraries and add-ons
including a TSR library, swapping spawn functions, a royalty-free 32-bit DOS
extender, and an excellent set of ancillary C and C++ tools libraries
including MFC 2.0 as previously noted. VC++ can generate true 32-bit code and
has a switch for generating Pentium code. At the same time that Symantec
bought Zortech, they also bought Multiscope, whose debuggers are included in
the package. As with VC++, SC++ includes excellent tools for quickly
developing Windows applications.

SC++ has always been in the forefront of optimizer technology along with
Microsoft and Watcom. A major feature is full IEEE-754 and NCEG (Numerical C
Extensions Group (an ANSI working committee trying to make C a suitable
replacement for FORTRAN) compatibilty.

The only negative for the current release is a poor reputation which arose
largely during the period following the Symantec acquisition of Zortech. With
6.1, these now appear mostly fixed. With the 6.1 release, support of DOS
graphics has been dropped, but an updated version of the excellent Flash
Graphics package shipped with the Zortech versions is available from FlashTek,
which also supplies improved verions of the 32-bit DOS extender and the
pre-Symantec debugger.

One caveat - if you got the 6.0 release, be sure to get the free 6.1 update!


WATCOM C/C++ (WC++)
-------------------

Watcom is the technological industry leader, performing feats of optimization
and floating point speed other vendors only dream of. The cost is compile
speed, which has been described (somewhat unfairly) as glacial. For all its
technical excellence, WC++ is still a niche market compiler like SC++. As
such, it's 3rd party support is poor, but many have found that Microsoft C
libraries will work just fine with WC++. Like SC++, and unlike BC++ and VC++,
WC++ provides documented support for embedded systems work, although not to
nearly the same degree as Metaware (see below).

Also, like SC++, WC++ supports 32-bit code generation. WC++ is the compiler
of choice for many OEMs, such as Novell, who want only the best supporting
code for their products. MSC/VC++ compatibility is excellent, but watch out
for Watcom's sensitivity to proper _cdecl declarations, implemented in Watcom
via a pragma rather than as a built-in language feature. Watcom sells both
16- and 32-bit versions of its C/C++ compiler. The best deal is to buy the
32-bit compiler and then purchase the 16-bit upgrade pack.

Where Watcom really shines is its support for a multitude of environments
with the same compiler(s). Supported are DOS, Win3.1, Win32s, NT, OS/2 (1.x &
2.x), Netware 386, AutoCAD ADS, QNX, Phar Lap and Rational DOS extenders.
With such a bewildering array of targets, compilation is relatively
straightforward but the linker has a steep learning curve.

Watcom remains the only one of the "big name" compilers to not ofer an IDE,
if that's important to you or you don't own a "real" programmer's editor.


METAWARE HIGH-C/C++ (HC++)
--------------------------

HC++ is the darling of some segments of the embedded systems market. As such,
it's a lot like WC++, only not quite as good and a lot weirder since it
offers detailed control over every aspect of the executable. Most WC++
comments apply, except for the ones relating to quality of generated code.
HC++'s code is quite good, but seems to be showing its niche market
orientation (any one remember Manx Aztec C?)


TOPSPEED C/C++ (TSC++)
----------------------

TSC++ has had a rocky life, getting off to a late start in the market and
never having really quite caught on. Originally, TSC++ was a Turbo C clone
.D 112 44
.I 160 1
TSC++'s undisputed biggest strength is its smart linker and various features
.D 161 1
.I 162 8
supports multi-threaded code). Using this technology, you can count on TSC++
to almost always produce the smallest executables for a given piece of source
code. The library, written almost exclusively in assembly, is also excellent
and contributes to the frugal use of run-time memory. Unfortunately,
compiler-generated code is typically not of the same quality.

Drawbacks include almost non-existant 3rd party support and the pervasive IDE
which feels more at home to Modula-2 programmers than C programmers.
.D 163 19
.I 190 8
to work in DOS's limited memory. OS/2 ports obviously don't share this
limitation. Along with SC++, WC++, and HC++, the gnu compilers round out the
list of full ISO/ANSI/ARM compilers with explicit support for embedded
systems.

Performance is decent, but not earth-shattering, and executable tends to
exhibit lots of bloat. If you plan to use one of these to write commercial
code, be sure and read the license agreement *very* closely.
.D 191 5
.I 202 2
anything. Small C's typically lack structs, unions, bit fields, and even long
integers.
.D 203 2
.I 207 7
First of all, Micro-C is an evolving product which, as of version 3, now
includes many features such as structs and unions not normally associated
with small C's.

Also, the source code (available when you register the shareware version) is
quite decent and really can teach you something about compiler internals. But
Micro-C is genuinely useful for a lot more reasons.
.D 208 3
.I 213 4
chips as well. The 80x86 version comes ready to compile either PC or embedded
code. Included in the PC library are support for writing TSR's, interrupt-
driven serial I/O, and screen windowing. Amazingly, it also sports an
optimizer, but requires MASM or equivalent for compiling PC applications.
.D 214 4
.I 219 1
small. "Hello world" programs that run 5-6K on other compilers run under 600
.D 220 1
.I 221 27

One other point needs to be mentioned with respect to Micro-C...  Although it
is *a* small C, it has no code commonality with *the* Small C from the book
of the same name. This is important since there are a number of variants of
Small C available, all not much better than the original.  Micro-C, OTOH, was
written by Dave Dunfield completely from scratch and is a *much* better
designed piece of code and certainly much more instructive to fledgling
compiler writers. His better design is evinced in code quality and execution
speed.


PCC
---

The Personal C Compiler is available as shareware. It used to be marketed as
the deSmet C compiler and had a generally good reputation for quick compile
times and tight code. Unfortunately, the product hasn't been seriously
upgraded in quite a while and can't stand too much comparison. It's horribly
non-ANSI compliant, has a weaker set of library functions than Micro-C,
features non-standard file formats, and is generally incompatible with most
published C code

If price is your concern, Mix Power C costs less to buy than PCC and offers
better performance along with the ANSI compliance that PCC lacks. If you plan
on using an unregistered copy, Gnu C/C++ are vastly superior and are legally
free. If you're attracted to its tight, fast code and can live with quirks
and without ANSI compliance, go with Dunfield Micro-C.