Date:	Sun, 3 Oct 1999 12:02:26 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: watcom c/c++ vs djgpp?
In-Reply-To:	<37F5A024.1ABC@earthlink.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.991003120029.16555E-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Rez wrote:

> > it produced fast code, 
> 
> Not for I/O-intensive apps :(

Please post code that shows how DJGPP-compiled programs are slower
than Watcom's, and measurements that demonstrate the relative speed
quantitatively.

> Try news://forums.sybase.com/powersoft.public.watcom_c_c++.general
> Folk there will bend over backwards trying to help anyone who needs it.
> I read both here and there, and I will say the watcom ng is a LOT more
> newbie-friendly.

If there are aspects to this newbie-friendliness beyond the "RTFM"
trend (to which I relate below), please point out where we could do
better.  I don't read the Watcom news group, so I don't know what did
you have in mind when you wrote this.

> An unfortunate but widespread trend in the open source
> world is that the first response to any newbie question is usually
> "RTFM" and if the docs are beyond their current understanding, tough. 

Please give examples of this misbehavior in this news group.

As far as I know, we don't simply say "RTFM", we say something like
this:

  This question is answered in section X.Y of the FAQ.  If something
  there is not clear enough, please post specific questions.

Given that the full reply to a non-trivial question is usually quite
long (see the average length of each section in the FAQ), and that a
non-full reply runs a risk of missing cricual details, could you
please tell why this is not a good policy, and how can it be made
better?

- Raw text -