Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/05/08/20:26:13
Hello.
Chris Lee wrote:
> Maybe because like most things in FAQS the information contained within
> them don't tend to be current? The discussion concering Watt32 is a
> perfect example of this. Networking Programing is not a static subject
> and for you to sit there and tell people to look in some FAQ that really
> doesn't answer the questions people have is quite frankly laughable.
I have to confess that I'm a bit puzzled by this. The list of networking
libraries in the FAQ is pretty complete, as far as I can see. Also, the
number of networking libraries for DJGPP has remained pretty static for
the past year or so.
Having just looked at section 22.4, which lists the networking libraries,
I can see that the description of Watt-32 might need a little adjustment.
Eli, I think you might need to mention that it's a DOS TCP/IP stack.
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't automatically assume that DJGPP
libraries work on plain ol' DOS. Hmm, perhaps that because most of mine
don't. ;)
> Untill the arrival of WATT32 there quite frankly wasn't a useable TCP/IP
> stack for DJGPP.
Do you mean for DOS? Or under Windows? libsocket works pretty well with
Winsock 1.x under Windows. The latest version, 0.7.4 beta 3, doesn't work
quite so well, mainly because I don't quite have the equipment to test it
with Winsock 2.
> I can't figure out why you would want to discourage people from talking
> about using DJGPP for network programing now that there is now a usable
> TCP/IP library/stack for it....
I think that was exasperation, rather than discouragement, to be honest.
Here we have this nice big helpful FAQ, but many people don't seem to read
it.
[ BTW one of my projects for libsocket is to integrate Watt-32 into
libsocket. I got some way with this, but gave up due to lack of time. ]
Bye,
--
Richard Dawe
richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com ICQ 47595498 http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/
- Raw text -