Scott Dattalo wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Brandon Stewart wrote:
>
>
>>Everyone recommends C2C as a good free alternative to High-Tech.  Is it that
>>good and what do you loose by using c2c instead of high-Tech?
>
>
> I guess that depends on what you mean by good.
>
> I haven't used either too much, but as I recall, c2c has a
> weak/non-existant pre-processor. For example, you can't use #ifdef
> constructs. There's an issue with signed/unsigned chars. For example, you
> can't say "signed char". There's also an issue with structures. On the
> version I had, structures were not recognized. Maybe these issues have
> been fixed. Maybe not. But in either case, you can't easily change the
> ingredients of free beer...
>
> In my (biased) opinion, SDCC is much better than c2c. Neither aren't
> nearly as good as the professional packages sold by HiTech or ByteCraft.
> For hobbyists, I recommend SDCC. For professionals, I recommend commercial
> C compilers.
>
> Scott

C2C was bought by Kanda, and is now Optama. See http://www.optama.com
for more information.

Bryan - Software Engineer - Kanda Systems Ltd

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads