Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/09/29/21:30:54
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 03:25:39 GMT, "Michael Frayn" <mfrayn AT home DOT com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi there. I'm at the time in development, where I must choose
> > a 32-bit DOS based compiler to develop my future games in.
DJGPP.
> > I previously used BC++ 3.1 f/ 16-bit dos.
So did I. The best I ever did under BC++ is Insane Game.
http://pineight.webjump.com/binaries/
> > I guess everybody here uses djgpp, so my question is this:
> >
> > Why djgpp over Watcom? Any and all opinions would be appreciated.
Davin McCall <DavMac AT iname DOT com> answered:
> It doesn't cost anything, it's being maintained and programs written
> using its libraries will probably be easier to port. It supports LFN
> on Win95 (does Watcom? I'm not sure).
NOTE: No known DOS tool supports long filenames under
Sindows NT.
> For game programming, another issue is the existence
> of the Allegro game library.
Which is now (as of 3.925) available for DJGPP, Watcom,
Linux gcc, and M$ Visual C++ for Sin32. Think about it:
Make a game for DOS, recompile it for Linux, recompile it
for Win32, changing about six lines of source code per
platform. Now that's portability.
http://www.talula.demon.co.uk/allegro/
Eli, this question (Why DJGPP?) is asked more often than
you think. Maybe it should be in the short FAQ list after all.
Damian Yerrick
http://come.to/yerrick
- Raw text -