Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/09/02/13:00:03.4
On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 16:16:45 GMT, AndrewJ
<luminous-is AT REMOVE DOT home DOT com> wrote:
>>>Where does DJGPP go in the future? (I guess that it will continue to follow
>>>the direction of gcc, such as support for more languages. But what else?)
>>>Will DJGPP become too tied to ye olde DOS to remain of use?
>>
>>And you say "ye olde DOS" will be disappearing anytime soon? It's
>>still a popular simple, realtime OS for embedded systems:
>> http://www.drdos.com/
>>And for small systems that don't have the computrons for Linux:
>> http://www.drdos.org/
>
>Shouldn't that have been www.freedos.org ?
That too.
>>>What is there for non-contributors like myself to do to participate?
>>
>>Use DJGPP. Push DJGPP.
>
>Y'know, Damian, DJGPP /can't/ do /everything/ ;) .
Duh. For a while, I was using DJGPP, Borland Turbo C++ 3.0, and
QBaSuck.
>"Use DJGPP for those projects which it is a suitable implementation, or, where
>possible, try to ensure that it will at least be compilable with the GNU
>tools."
>
>However, with Watcom going OpenSource, I think you'll find many people
>migrating away from DJGPP. Consider the following benefits and drawbacks
>[1][2][3] :
>
>DJGPP -> DOS pm executables
Windows exes (through RSXNTDJ)
Exes for other configurations of GCC
>Allegro library, open source (GPL), excellent code
>generators, confusing assembler syntax
NASM (netwide assembler), a common DJGPP addon, fixes the
"Gas-backwards" AT&T syntax.
>sometimes confusing (cryptic names, I blame its UNIX'ish heritage <g>),
>excellent help (if you know where to look)
..../djgpp/faq/djgppfaq.htm
>Watcom -> DOS rm/pm executables, Win16g/32g/console executables,
>QNX executables, Novell NLM's and many other formats
Nice... With Open Watcom, this list will surely be extended.
>relatively simple to use (in comparison)
How much harder is RHIDE than Watcom's IDE? RHIDE is no harder than,
say, Borland's.
>moderately good help (easy to find what you want, assuming it's
>there), excellent code generator, it will also be open source.
But will it be truly Free? Some so-called "open source" software
isn't. Read about some of the "bad licenses" (APSL, Plan 9, etc.)
here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#LicensingFreeSoftware
>[1] I'm not taking into consideration the portability issues between different
>ports of the GNU tools, which is a significant benefit for DJGPP
Which is one reason I use MinGW rather than MSVC for compiling
Windows apps (I also like RHIDE better than Visual Studio).
>[2] I'm also sure I'm missing a few for both, this is a quick list.
Fixed partially. Are there any Watcom vs. DJGPP bullet lists on the
Net?
>[3] Why do 90% of my replies to you usually involve me dragging
>Watcom into it? I think over the years a subliminal message has
>been implanted deep in my mind.
Me too, except I've been brainwashed by RMS and ESR.
>IMHO, the best setup is both!
That is, once Open Watcom is bootstrapped into a 100% free product
that doesn't need the support of Closed USD$500+ Watcom.
>And with it being open source, we'll probably see it start to
>migrate to other platforms (and other architectures, too)!
I agree. It's about time for a full-scale competitor to GCC (no
offense LCC etc. but you need more supported platforms to compete).
--
tiddly-day interj. (used to express agreement.)
[American cellphone lingo]
This is McAfee VirusScan. Add these two lines to your signature to
prevent the spread of signature viruses. http://www.mcafee.com/
- Raw text -