LAHEY vs DEC vs MS-Powerstation (long) 
Author Message
 LAHEY vs DEC vs MS-Powerstation (long)

Steve Lionel writes:


> |>It is partially little thinks which however complicate unnecessarily
> |>operation (according to my opinion) with this development
> environment.

> I'm sure Bob Runyan from Lahey will comment on the points you raise as
> regards LF90 (perhaps their version 3.5 addresses some of the issues.) > I can tell you what DIGITAL Visual fortran does for these things.

> |>There e.g. is no On-Line aid. for that compiler and/or that compiler
> |>switches.

There is complete on-line documentation in version 3.5 and above.  It
is in PDF format, so what you get looks exactly like the books.  You
can automatically jump around with preset bookmarks and by using the
table of contents, index and cross references.  All the books are
searchable.  This is not integrated into the IDE in version 3.5.


> DIGITAL Visual Fortran offers both an online manual (accessible from
> within
> the Developer Studio environment) and context-sensitive help for the
> switches
> from the dialog boxes where you can set them.

> |>It gives no dialog box for the compilers switches.

Not quite right.  There is a dialog for compiler switches.  You
enter the switches as a text string rather than by clicking on
radio buttons or check boxes.  Both ways have some advantages.  For
most things I kind of like DEC/Microsoft's way of doing it better.
Perhaps we'll add this in a future release.


> DIGITAL Visual Fortran provides dialog box-based switch setting on a
> project-wide or per-file basis.

> |>It can be defined no projects in which the main program and all
> |>libraries are summarised (compare MS-Powerstation).

> I don't quite understand what you're describing here, but the
> Developer
> Studio interface is very similar to that of MS Fortran PowerStation,
> so if
> you could do it there, you can very likely do it in DVF.

> |>If one has all libraries in a subdirectory, the compiler does not
> |>recognise automatically the main program but attempts it from the
> first
> |>one (alphabetical ? ) and tries to make an EXE-file.

With LF90 all you do is type "AM" in the directory and everything
is built automatically.  Automake figures out all include and
module dependencies and invokes the LF90 driver automatically.  
Automake, by the way, is licensed from Polyhedron Software.  It is
a brilliant little tool.  Sometimes people have a hard time figuring
it out because it is just *too* easy.


> In DVF, the source files in a project are analyzed for dependencies
> and
> built in the proper order automatically.

> |>All libraries in a subdirectory are always translated and not only
> that
> |>which was changed.

Not if you use Automake.  Only the files that need to be rebuilt are


> DVF rebuilds only those files which have changed and files dependent
> on
> changed files.

> |>He does not start the DEBUG for WIN32S although the corresponding
> switch
> |>is set.

While we do support Win32s (this is what enables Win 3.1 users to
use your application), I don't understand Frank's assertion.


> DVF does not support Win32S.

> |>It is not possible seemingly to run  the developed program in an
> own
> |>window ;  I had to change always into the DOS-Fullscreen-mode.

Both extended DOS and Win32 console-mode applications will run just
fine in a Window.  With extended-DOS applications you need to set
the DOS box to "Window" in the DOS boxes screen properties, and not
"suggest MS-DOS as necessary" and any other options on the DOS box
"advanced" properties.  With Windows console-mode applications the
window is automatically created, like with DVF (and any other tool
that creates Windows console-mode applications).


> In DVF, by default, "console mode" applications run in their own
> window which
> is automatically created when you start the program.

> |>The LAHEY ED does not works among WINDOW-NT and one should work
> among
> |>DOS, what I consider for an unreasonable regress .

Lahey ED was weak on NT.  The deficiencies have all been corrected
in version 4.0, due out in a few weeks.

We no longer ship a DOS editor.  This is the first complaint I've
heard about this in at least a year.  I don't regret our decision.
You can, however create applications for DOS and run the compiler
and other tools (other than the editor) from DOS.


> DVF supports Windows NT, it does not support DOS.  (Neither did
> Fortran
> PowerStation 4.0.)

Bob Runyan            
Lahey Computer Systems

Mon, 20 Mar 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 [ 1 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. LAHEY vs DEC vs MS-PowerStation

2. MS Powerstation VS. Lahey?

3. Files from MS - fortran 4.0 vs Lahey Fortran 5.2

4. Digital VF 5.0 Optimizations vs MS FPS 4.0, Lahey LF90

5. MS PowerStation vs. 5.1 for Windows

6. Better compiler in laptop, LF90 V2.0 vs MS Powerstation 4.0

7. MS ver 5.1 vs Powerstation

8. DEC vs. MS compatible

9. stdcall vs c vs cdecl vs pascal vs whosyerdaddy

10. 68K vs CFM68K vs Tk 8.0.3 vs AppearanceLib vs System 7

11. C++ vs Eiffel vs Smalltalk (warning--long language war)

12. C++ vs Eiffel vs Smalltalk (warning--long language war)


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software