Message-ID:	<199808020018400530.0049271B@pogwizd.tcs.uni.wroc.pl>
In-Reply-To:	<000901bdbd6d$c06e9740$ad4e08c3@arthur>
References:	<000901bdbd6d$c06e9740$ad4e08c3 AT arthur>
Date:	Sun, 02 Aug 1998 00:18:40 +0200
From:	"Pawel Kowalski" <pk AT tcs DOT uni DOT wroc DOT pl>
To:	arfa AT clara DOT net, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	RE: DJ+Allegro & employment?
Mime-Version:	1.0

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 98-08-01, at 19:19, Arthur wrote: 

>>If you want to get a job as a game programmer, then I suggest you
>>ditch Allegro and DJGPP, get Visual C++ 5.0, learn Windows 95
>>programming and DirectX + OpenGL and everything affiliated with 3d
>>programming, almost every game programmer in the market is a 3d
>>programmer.
>
>I disagree with ditching DJGPP. Quake, Quake, Quake, Quake, Quake... Besides, you can
>access Windows throug DJGPP, now.

DJGPP is good for Dos, not Windows. Of course you can access Windows through DJGPP, 
but YOU CAN NOT USE ANY MS-COMPATIBLE LIBRARY, it needs porting to DJGPP first.
Eg. is it possible to use DirectX 5.0 SDK with DJGPP? -not. However with VC++ it is.

>BTW, OpenGL's had it now. It's powerful, I agree, but the difference in quality is
>negligable compared to Direct 3D 5.2, and DirectX is more widely supported (and
>faster) than GL.

In most cases DirectX is NOT faster than OpenGL. However DirectX is more widely supported.


>Anyway, there's RSXNTDJ you can use to use Windows, and there's WinAllegro which
>supports DirectX. And WinAllegro also supports VC++ if you are going to defect to the
>Dark Side :^)

Wouldn't it be easier to use (VC++ + DirectX) than (VC++ + WinAllegro + DJGPP's port of DirectX)

If you think that DJGPP+RSXNTDJ is really better than VC++, Watcom for Win32, etc, then tell
me why:
Quake 2 was written in VC++,
N.I.C.E. 2 - VC++
StarCraft - VC++
Shipwreckers - WC++
GLQuake - VC++
etc, etc...

Pawel Kowalski

- Raw text -