Xref: news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:2222
Path: news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!news.larc.nasa.gov!usenet
From: t DOT s DOT abbott AT larc DOT nasa DOT gov (Terence Abbott)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: IDE for DJGPP?
Date: 27 Sep 1995 15:06:50 GMT
Organization: NASA -Langley Research Center
Lines: 27
References: <43uc9c$9oo AT gateway DOT cis DOT ysu DOT edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: tsabbo.larc.nasa.gov
To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Dj-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <43uc9c$9oo AT gateway DOT cis DOT ysu DOT edu>, psilver AT cis DOT ysu DOT edu says...
>
>Just out of curiosity, does anyone happen to know of an IDE for DJGPP?  
I know
>there is a nice one called xwpe for X11R6 but what about DOS/Windows?
>
>I'm trying to escape Borland but haven't felt like it for lack of a nice 
>integrated package with an actually easy to use debugger.  
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Paul Silver

Having used Borland since its first release and DJGPP for the past 3
years, the overwhelming advantage of using Borland for code development
is its debugger.  It typically takes me 3-4 times longer to find
a problem using gbd or ladybug than it does with Borland.  My current
development environment is Borland with the PharLap DOS extender.  If
an equivalent debugger (with graphics support) were available for DJGPP,
I'd probably switch over to it for both development and run-time code
generation.

So to me, the big argument for the Borland IDE is NOT THE EDITOR, it is
the capabilities of the debugger.

Disclaimer: Note that neither I nor NASA is endorsing Borland or PharLap.