Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/06/04/14:30:19
AndrewJ wrote:
>
> Hmm... what I meant was that by now they've proven that the compiler is their
> own work. If they make it smaller and better now, who's going to care? You
> said they made it big so no one would think they'd been "plagiarised", by now
> that has been proven.
You cannot ``prove'' this once and for all. As GCC is developed, new code is
constantly added to it. If this new code looks too similar to copyrighted
software...
> > These are all x86-based. GCC supports lots of non-Intel CPUs (in
> > fact, it took Linux to get the GCC to respect x86 as an important
> > platform).
>
> - did you read the paragraph after it? -
Of course, I did.
> It doesn't match GCC in scope of host platforms or target architechtures, but
> no compiler I know of can target as many x86's operating systems as Watcom all
> in one package (that excludes the myriad number of ports of GCC from this
> comparison).
Targeting many OSes for the same CPU is not the same as targeting lots of
different CPUs. It's an entirely different game, which requires an entirely
different design.
> I don't want to start arguing about Watcom vs. GCC, but I will defend it when I
> feel the need arises.
I fail to see why do you think you need to defend it. Nobody is attacking
Watcom here.
> Watcom's not such a bad product (and it's originally
> Canadian, like me ;) So it's more a matter of pride.
This forum is not about national pride, it's about other issues.
- Raw text -