To:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
From:	LIP AT odie DOT ee DOT wits DOT ac DOT za
Date:	12 Mar 93 11:40:03 SAT
Subject:	Re: thanks and GNUish advocacy

Hi everyone,
In reply to Rami's comments:
>
> If you need full 32 bit compiler and cross platform support, then GCC
> is the best choice. BC, TC and MSC don't generate full 32 bit code (BC
> generates 16 bit code with some arithmetic in 32 bit).

I agree and GCC also provides a flat memory model and one does not
have to bother about memory models, EMS, XMS etc.

256 colour standard libraries like libgrx are better than Borlands 16
colour ones: most 3rd part BGI's dont support all graphics functions.

> The main rival for GCC isn't BC, TC nor ZTC, but Watcom and Intel code
> builder. I think Watcom managed to make their 32 bit code run under
> windows. But this was easier for them to do because they have control
> over their executable file format. With djgpp we are stuck with the
> a.out format, which is nice but cannot be ported to DPMI 0.9.

IMHO, DPMI is lousy and the downfall of Windows 3.x.  The programmer
has to do the memory management.  I have seen Watcom and Intel code
builder advertised in mags. (DR. Dobbs's, Comp. Lang. etc.) but
neither seem to be widely used or available in this part of the world.
The glossies look good, the prices frightening (if I remember
correctly).

> This is merely a sample listing of some facts,
> hope this will help you

thanks to Rami and all other responses.

I have not yet tried emx, could those who have used both DJGPP and emx
offer their opinions?

thanks again,
Tony.

- Raw text -