Date:	Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:00:33 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Andrew Jones <luminous-is AT home DOT com>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: <Damian Y> Re: It's back, but the ...
In-Reply-To:	<7r4q4.45719$45.2400743@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000215134447.25442D-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Andrew Jones wrote:

> Also, it's not so much an extender that's built into Windows, it's a DPMI host.

Actually, Windows has both the extender and the DPMI host built into it.  
So Damian's language is about right.

> And DJGPP has had its share of bugs and problems.

True for every software.  I don't think there's any chance of an
objective (i.e. quantitative) comparison, so we might as well drop
this issue.

> Less so these days, but in its earlier years.

The earlier years are irrelevant to someone who wants to choose
today.

> And it seems to be a
> particularily difficult compiler for "newbies" to use and set up.

I disagree.  Anyone who reads the installation instructions doesn't
have *any* problems.

> Also, when
> Watcom was at its height, there was almost as much information available for it
> as there is for DJGPP. 

It is impossible for any compiler/library whose sources aren't freely 
available to provide the same level of information as the Free Software
does.  No amount of reverse-engineered user-generated ``inside info'' can 
ever replace a single look into the actual sources or a mail exchange 
with the person(s) who designed and wrote the darn thing, discussing 
those same sources.  It's no use to argue.

> Portability may be wonderful for DJGPP, but consider that Watcom can target
> 16-bit real-mode DOS, 32-bit protected-mode DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 9x,
> Windows NT, QNX, Novel Netware, and (broken) ELF.  DJGPP handles 32-bit
> protected mode DOS.

You and Damian have two different definitions of portability.  You are 
talking about a portable product, while Damian talks about a portable 
source and development environment.  GCC, Binutils and other GNU tools
are available on every platform out there, including all those you 
mentioned (with the possible exception of QNX).

> I don't want to fuel a "which compiler is best" flame war, but your degrading
> references to Watcom do grate on me.  It seems to indicate that you are
> uninformed and ignorant, which I know for a fact that you are not.

I tend to agree.

Damian, it doesn't do any good to anyone to make your personal opinions
(to which you are entitled) stick out so blatantly.  The world isn't black
and white, the real choices are hard to make; the only people who tell
otherwise usually want to sell something.  So I suggest to make the
``selling'' attitude in this document a bit les blunt. 

- Raw text -