At 23:27 12/30/2001 -0800, Mark Newland wrote:
>I can't speak for others but one of the main things I am looking at is NOT
>learning 4+ versions of 'C'.

What you will have to learn are 4+ different sets of libraries -- which are
way more complex than the language itself, and change a lot faster. That's
the trouble, and I know no way around it (other than to give up programming
and start to simply make money :)

> From what I understand, Hi-Tech would be more simular to these others
> than CCS
>would be (at least out of the box).

As stated in more extent in another message, for me the standard structure
how the compiler works (header include files, separate compiling of library
files, linking for example) makes working with HiTech a lot easier for me.
Your mileage may vary.

>1) Am I to assume that if I don't use the built-in functions, I would have to
>write the functions myself from scratch or could I truely just have a creative
>set of defines and macros?

If you don't use them, you have to write something to replace them for
yourself. Can probably be (sometimes simple) macros in many cases, a
combination of macros and normal code (IIRC always included in CCS, never
linked) in other cases.

>2) If I have to write functions for CCS, are these functions not already
>included
>in the higher price tag of Hi-Tech 'C'?

Some, probably not all. HiTech provides a number of example libraries,
which I usually modify to suit my needs. But I _can_ modify them (because I
have the full source code) -- there's no way to modify the code generated
by the built-in functions of CCS, there's not even a simple way to use them
as a base for writing your own (other than copying from the generated
assembler listing). And if you want to inspect them, you have to look at
the generated assembler code, not at the source C code. One of the reasons
why I prefer libraries over built-in functions (and one of the reasons why
standard C was designed that way).

>3) If I don't have to write functions for CCS to match the functions in
>Hi-Tech
>'C', why is Hi-Tech still in business at the outrages prices they have?

No answer here... :)  When I evaluated CCS amd HiTech a few years back, I
got scared by the amount of bug fixes the CCS author published each week.
That was a constant flow, which also means that there were, with a high
probability, still many many weeks of bugs to fix in the compiler I was
using at any time. Which in a way does not shed a good light on the quality
of the compiler design.

ge

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body