NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/sys/amiga/programm/17718

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 1.7 KB | 34 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Path: sparky!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!rz.uni-passau.de!kirk.fmi.uni-passau.de!agsteine
From: [e-mail] (Karlheinz Agsteiner)
Subject: Re: Advice to SAS/C 5.10b users
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News-Operator)
Organization: University of Passau, Germany
References:  <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:42:59 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sam Hulick) writes:
|>
|> It would be rather safe to stick with 5.10b.  6.0 and 6.1 are too
|> buggy.. But you can probably see that from all the posts(complaints) on
|> c.s.a.p. :)

This is not true at all. There may be small bugs in the new user interface,
but the compiler itself is _much_ more reliable than 5.10b. Take the optimizer:
GO 5.1 had lots of bad bugs, which made it totally unusable for me (most of my
bigger programs didn't run if compiled with go, but did well without optimisation
or if compiled with other compilers / other machines). The optimizer of SAS/C 6.1,
however, is doing a _great_ job. It generates very good code and it's quite reliable
(only one function I wrote until now was optimized badly (yes, I have reported
this to EMITS - it's a bug in the tail recursion code)).

IMHO, SAS/C 6.1 is a very good compiler package and if You prefer using 5.10b,
it's Your own fault. I can only recommend upgrading to 6.1 to every version 5
user. I'm using SAS/C for my "final thesis" (don't know a better English word :( )
as a student of computer science right now, and I'm really quite impressed.

--
e-mail: [e-mail]