Date   : Mon, 09 Apr 1984 19:33:00-EST
From   : Russ Smith <smith@Nrl-Aic.ARPA>
Subject: Re: C for small machines

In order to continue a (not so) fiery discussion...

First, I didn't mean to imply anything about the "reviewer" of
the C compilers mentioned in the previous note. Once again my fingers
moved faster than the diplomacy in my head...

However...

The C/80 compiler is written in C/80 (like BDS is written in BDS C
and SMALL C is written in...). So are a text formatter similar to
U**X nroff, a LISP interpreter, and a number of other things
available from Software Toolworks. These are marketed programs so
I'd have to assume they were written by "professional" programmers.
When one compares the intrinsic functionality of C/80 and BDS C
one finds that they are remarkably similar, especially if one
considers that the libraries of stuff provided by BDS can be
obtained from simtel20 (among other places). Once more I'd like
to mention that C/80 performed "better" in execution benchmarks by a
number of independent testers (if this means anything).

The C/80 2.0 compiler is a C compiler well suited for "professional"
purposes. I understand that Version 3.0 has more of the standard
features that one expects from a "professional"s tool. At the price
being asked, THIS reviewer considers it to be not only inexpensive, 
but one of the better C compilers available on the market, and,
widespread use of BDS not withstanding, "better" in many important
ways than said compiler.

Typed from the keyboard of a multi-year "professional" computer scientist,

Russ <Smith@nrl-aic>

P.S.
Sorry about that folks, but the 'at least "professional" programmers'
aside in JB's previous note got my scruff up...