Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
From: design AT netcom DOT com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Is djgpp better than Watcom C?
Message-ID: <designDzwnJA.3tt@netcom.com>
Organization: Design and Delivery
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 961018104724 DOT 3677A-100000 AT aditya DOT unigoa DOT ernet DOT in> <1996Oct24 DOT 103643 DOT 5298 AT news> <32713240 DOT 5DC2AC75 AT mercury DOT execulink DOT com> <32720C6A DOT 53F0 AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:52:22 GMT
Lines: 31
Sender: design AT netcom4 DOT netcom DOT com
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <32720C6A DOT 53F0 AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>,
Mark Habersack  <grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl> wrote:

>With one compiler you can produce programs for three OSs: DOS, Win95 &
>WinNT.
>And all this functionality takes 70% less disk space than with Borland,
>Watcom or M$ compilers.

Watcom targets DOS (16 AND 32-bit), Win3.1 (16 AND 32-bit), Win95, OS/2,
and WinNT, and you can run off the CD rom.  As for size, Watcom can
target any of those OSes *from* any of those OSes.  (You don't need,
e.g. OS/2's msdos support installed to build msdos executables.)  It
also comes with MFC and with SOM support.  It takes more space in part
because it has more stuff.

>Results:
>  DJGPP  WATCOM
>    4      0

I think Watcom actually wins this one.

Of course, if we were to compare Watcom to gcc in general, it's another
story....

Watcom also has, I think, better support for C++ templates and
exceptions, but I won't swear to this part.

Of course, djgpp is sitting on my hard drive, Watcom is still on the CD
rom.  But then, I can use Watcom from there!

Watcom also came with a groovy t-shirt.  :-)