From:	Tudor <tudor AT cam DOT org>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 22:45:00 -0800
Organization:	Communications Accesibles Montreal
Lines:	20
Message-ID:	<32E9ABEC.714F@cam.org>
References:	<5c1qik$9sh AT lion DOT cs DOT latrobe DOT edu DOT au>
Reply-To:	tudor AT cam DOT org
NNTP-Posting-Host:	dynamicppp-200.hip.cam.org
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Gregary J Boyles wrote:
> On the whole I have found Borland C++ compilers to be among the most >unreliable and unpredictable products on the market. Has any one else >encountered the
> same problems and how does djgpp compare to them?
Be a good guy and give an enter every 80 chars or so, so the text will
be readable.
Well, I can't say I had serious problems with Borland stuff ,only that
they are 16 bit ,real mode, slow buggy code...etc etc.
Actually I started C in turboC++.
Compared to them DJGPP is a lot better.
-- 
tudor 'at' cam 'dot' org
yoda69 'at' hotmail 'dot' com
http://www.cam.org/~tudor

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d-(--) s(-):(+) a? C+ UL>++++ P L>+++++ E- W++ N o K---(----) w---
O---- M-- V-? PS+++ PE Y PGP t+ 5-- X+++>++++ R tv b+ DI D+ G e->++
h>++ r- y>+++++ 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

- Raw text -