delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/09/02/16:00:05.3

Path: news.mv.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news3.rdc1.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: AndrewJ <luminous-is AT REMOVE DOT home DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: The Future of DJGPP
Message-ID: <pql2rssotrdupk626j015cp58p2t625gkn@4ax.com>
References: <967904615 DOT 832712 AT shelley DOT paradise DOT net DOT nz> <8t32rsodgkia3rk2rok5fn57vcgta55nc5 AT 4ax DOT com> <jv82rscrkqsat4n86qua8077i0hpbfbhno AT 4ax DOT com> <gka2rso7b2hk6ejgrtlfo4q1giormmh742 AT 4ax DOT com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 107
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 19:45:54 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.42.120.18
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT home DOT net
X-Trace: news3.rdc1.on.home.com 967923954 24.42.120.18 (Sat, 02 Sep 2000 12:45:54 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 12:45:54 PDT
Organization: Excite AT Home - The Leader in Broadband
Xref: news.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:103107

>>"Use DJGPP for those projects which it is a suitable implementation, or, where
>>possible, try to ensure that it will at least be compilable with the GNU
>>tools."
>>
>>However, with Watcom going OpenSource, I think you'll find many people
>>migrating away from DJGPP.  Consider the following benefits and drawbacks
>>[1][2][3] :
>>
>>DJGPP -> DOS pm executables
>
>Windows exes (through RSXNTDJ)
>Exes for other configurations of GCC

True.  Forgot about those.

>>Allegro library, open source (GPL), excellent code
>>generators, confusing assembler syntax
>
>NASM (netwide assembler), a common DJGPP addon, fixes the
>"Gas-backwards" AT&T syntax.

NASM isn't an "official" part of DJGPP.  I use NASM with Watcom too. :)

>>sometimes confusing (cryptic names, I blame its UNIX'ish heritage <g>),
>>excellent help (if you know where to look)
>
>.../djgpp/faq/djgppfaq.htm

Yes, but some people (including myself, occasionally) have problems checking
the FAQ for answers.

>>Watcom -> DOS rm/pm executables, Win16g/32g/console executables,
>>QNX executables, Novell NLM's and many other formats
>
>Nice...  With Open Watcom, this list will surely be extended.

Yes.  I'd imagine they'll finally get ELF working properly.  I also forgot to
mention the various OS/2 executables.

>>relatively simple to use (in comparison)
>
>How much harder is RHIDE than Watcom's IDE?  RHIDE is no harder than,
>say, Borland's.

Watcom no longer has an IDE for DOS (did it ever?), only Windows (OS/2?).
Hence, I don't consider it.  Besides, anything that can be done in an IDE can
be done in Makefiles.  I just hope WMake moves towards a more GNU Make style
and syntax.

>>moderately good help (easy to find what you want, assuming it's
>>there), excellent code generator, it will also be open source.
>
>But will it be truly Free?  Some so-called "open source" software
>isn't.  Read about some of the "bad licenses" (APSL, Plan 9, etc.)
>here:
>  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#LicensingFreeSoftware

They are going to release it under the "Open Source License [insert some
version I can't remember]".  The general attitude I seem to get from the core
developers I've conversed with is that you'll be able to do just about anything
with it.

>>[1] I'm not taking into consideration the portability issues between different
>>ports of the GNU tools, which is a significant benefit for DJGPP
>
>Which is one reason I use MinGW rather than MSVC for compiling
>Windows apps (I also like RHIDE better than Visual Studio).

Fair enough.  I agree.  I really should download MinGW.  

>>[2] I'm also sure I'm missing a few for both, this is a quick list.
>
>Fixed partially.  Are there any Watcom vs. DJGPP bullet lists on the
>Net?

Not that I know of, aside from Salvador's benchmarking tests.  Perhaps someday
I'll write up a full list, but I don't really feel it necessary.  Each is
excellent in its own right.

>>[3] Why do 90% of my replies to you usually involve me dragging
>>Watcom into it? I think over the years a subliminal message has
>>been implanted deep in my mind.
>
>Me too, except I've been brainwashed by RMS and ESR.

<G>

>>IMHO, the best setup is both!
>
>That is, once Open Watcom is bootstrapped into a 100% free product
>that doesn't need the support of Closed USD$500+ Watcom.

Yeah, that is the only bummer.  But just wait a few months.  Then you won't
have to pay anything beyond your ISP's fees.  OTO, you have to consider that
Watcom/Powersoft/Sybase made a living by selling the compiler.  It didn't work
on a donations type system like the FSF does.

>>And with it being open source, we'll probably see it start to
>>migrate to other platforms (and other architectures, too)!
>
>I agree.  It's about time for a full-scale competitor to GCC (no
>offense LCC etc. but you need more supported platforms to compete).

It would be nice, but I wouldn't say competition.  More like friendly rivalry. 

-------
AndrewJ

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019