Subject: Re: Win 95 console business
From: [email-masked] (Benjamin Constable)

4 Nov 1997 20:48:47 -0800
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

> Yes, The console compiler is a basic part of the operating system,
> along with nmake, the linker, and the binary tools, you can keep
> MFC, and charge for it, those are extensions, like Motif libraries
> are extensions under Unix.

Most of VC++ is what you call extensions. That is why I refute your claim
- because something as complex as VC++ shouldn't be expected for free.
 
> Yes, they are both the standard language of the time.

Since when has C not been a standard language of any time?

> Do you really think it took more work to produce vc++
> from gcc than gw_basic from scratch?

VC++ was made with VC++. Before VC++, it was made with MSC. And it has
been developed for about 8 years now.

gw_basic did not take 8 years.

> Well try setting it up as a network server for a couple of hundred users, 
> and see how long it lasts, 10 days tops, based on my experience.

I refrain from answering this. My experience shows discussions on
operating systems that involve NT and linux at the same time cause too
much hassle. 
 
> VC++ isn't a command line compiler?

By definition "Visual C++" is not command line. But the compiler that it
uses (cl.exe, in program files\devstudio\vc\bin\winnt\) can be used from
the command line. As can nmake, which does a very good job of reading
makefiles.

So yes, it can be used from the commandline if you wish. I do it all the
time.

> cmd.exe isn't a shell?

It is a shell. It is a small and not very implemented one, but it has tab
completion and far better globbing than command.com ever did.

> the posix subsystem isn't supposed to support unix compatibility?
> WOW I bet the government was surprised!!!

:) The posix subsystem is a joke, but when extended to 1003.1 it works
pretty well (i.e. opennt).
 
> Gcc can far exceed VC++, just because of it's extensibility, if you want a
> visual IDE, you are free to write one, or use one of the IDE's available
> on the net.

VC++ can extend just as far as gcc can. Ever heard of zapp and zinc? Both
of them work with vc++. VC++ is a combination of a compiler and an IDE.
The compiler part is what gcc maps to. 
 
> Cygnus supports the GNUpro line of compiler tools, they could
> get along very well without MS, the cygwin.dll is an experiment
> to see if they can port their tools to win32, not an essential of 
> their business, But if that's not in competition with MS's development
> tools, Then what is it?

It is not in _serious_ competition with MS's windows development tools,
because VC++ is far better suited to windows development. And gcc is far
better suited to posix compliant or unix code development.

That may change in the future, but that is how things are now (in my
opinion, anyway).

Ben Constable
[email-masked]

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".