From:	Chris Croughton <crough45 AT amc DOT de>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: To DJGPP programmers.......?
Date:	Fri, 05 Jun 1998 14:54:12 +0200
Message-ID:	<3577EA74.5690@amc.de>
References:	<199806031248 DOT VAA18531 AT tiger1 DOT nownuri DOT net> <357729A8 DOT 378FFF84 AT cs DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	bob.bob.bofh.org
MIME-Version:	1.0
Lines:	46
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

John M. Aldrich wrote:
> 
> ½Å¼®¿µ wrote:

This presumably meant something once, but after mangling through
character sets it looks to my like 1/2 Aring 1/4 (R) inverted-? mu...

> >  I like programming very much. And I have used some compilers.
> >  ( Borland C&C++, Asembler, Pascal,Visual C, DJGPP and etc..).
> >  I've found purposes or advantages of those compilers.
> >
> >          Then, I have a question to you :
> >  "Why do you select the DJGPP in many compilers?"
> 
> The original reason I chose DJGPP was that I had obtained the source
> code to a popular Internet game during my stay at Georgia Tech and I
> needed a reasonably Unix-like compiler on which to build it.  

This is my main reason, compatibility.  And a flat address space with
virtual memory (which you get with Win32 but at the cost of a very
severe performance hit and several hundred megabytes of disk used).  And
it's free from licencing restrictions, and comes with full source code. 
And - hold on, this is the Monty Python sketch about the Spanish
Inquisition, isn't it?

Put it this way, then: I can take a very large number of Unix programs
and 'port' them to DJGPP very easily (in a lot of cases 'porting' means
simply recompiling the source).  If I want to, I can hack them (or DJGPP
or its libraries) to correct bugs.  If I do correct bugs, I can easily
submit them (not just a bug report but a patch to correct the bug) so
that anyone can do an update without waiting for a manufacturer to sell
me the next release a year later (and I can profit from othe people's
patches, of course, it works both ways).

Is that enough of a reason?

In fact, I still do use Borland C/C++ for some things.  It's a lot
easier when doing intensive low-level DOS operations, for instance
(messing around with DOS internals etc.), and I have some programs which
are difficult to port from a 16-bit segmented architecture to a 32-bit
flat one so I still sometimes have to maintain those.  Horses for
courses - sometimes I use DEBUG to write programs...

Just my Pf3,6...

Chris C

- Raw text -