Re: C-compilers ??? From: "Martin Fensome" Reply to: "Martin Fensome" Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:36:52 -0800 Organization: Abstract Lock and Safe References: I've used both SuperC and Power C and have to favor Power C for it's extensibility (you can write your own object modules with freely available assemblers for this environment - though you have to dig a bit for the format of them), it's non copyprotectedness (can't copy SuperC to a native partition) and it's speed. I remember reading a Transactor article comparing the two and Power C beat the Super C in speed for a sorting program the author wrote. Also, power C is more of an 'environment' like Unix, whereas SuperC is a little more limited. Super C also saves files in a USR format, so you can't just @T on the filename to view the SEQ file text. Also, SuperC requires a runtime disk I believe for 128 programs..ie, they are not native 128 binaries. IMHO the only 2 things that SuperC have going for it are: - graphics library - excellent manual. But there are libraries out there for Power C (mostly from Qlink - I think John Leeson has the whole Power C collection from the Q) that allow graphic primitives, RS232 routines etc.. Martin Fensome Christoph Gutjahr wrote in message ... >Hi! > > DS> I used SuperC for a few years, it's OK but a little archaic (K&R sty > DS> Nonetheless, it produces fast code and has some good libraries. I've > DS> for download somewhere, and I think the manual is also available for > DS> download. > DS> Don't ask me where though, try doing a search for Abacus SuperC. > DS> -- > >Thanks for the information, will have a look... > >Christoph > > >- QWKie v3.1 - Christoph_Gutjahr@SachsenGEOS.Fido.de >