Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/09/07/20:43:57
Your points are incomplete and refuse to acknowledge the points that I
brought forward. The point you choose to dwell on is that MSVC is good for
Windows programming. This "advantage" of MSVC over DJGPP has long since
been overcome. It seems to me that your knowledge in these matters is
insufficient for such a discussion.
On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Joel Rosenthal wrote:
> You said DJGPP can produce windows programs? NO!
Yes! RSXNTDJ! (Sorry, that's probably the wrong name, I don't personally
use the package)
> Youc can get Cyrix, another port of GCC, and there is an add on you can
Cyrix is a processor from IBM. Cygnus is a company producing a Win32
version of gcc.
> get to make windows programs in DJGPP, but MSVC is THE thing for Windows
But, you just said you -can't- do Windows with DJGPP? Can you please make
up your mind?
> programing. Aslo, with MSVC, everything is is one package. With DJ,
> things are from different companies and different makers.
The main parts of DJGPP are from GNU. There are a couple add-ons, most of
which I personally feel have much higher quality than anything from
Microsloth. BTW, if you find a bug in MSVC, can you personally fix it?
> MSVC can do everything DJGPP does, and more: windows programmming, plus
Here you are changing your position again! Well, -can- DJGPP do Windows or
not? Make up your mind.
> a lot of other goodies.
Name these goodies. You seem unable.
> Besides the Game Quake, professionals don't use free compileres
And Quake, man, that's just such an inconsequential program, isn't it? At
any rate, just because a company is too stupid to understand that free
software often has higher quality than commercial software doesn't
automagically make that higher quality go away. Your statement proves less
than nothing.
- Raw text -