From: "John M. Aldrich" <fighteer AT cs DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Is djgpp better than Watcom C?
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:49:19 -0700
Organization: Three pounds of chaos and a pinch of salt
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <32725D2F.1FA8@cs.com>
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 961018104724 DOT 3677A-100000 AT aditya DOT unigoa DOT ernet DOT in> <1996Oct24 DOT 103643 DOT 5298 AT news> <32713240 DOT 5DC2AC75 AT mercury DOT execulink DOT com> <32720C6A DOT 53F0 AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Reply-To: fighteer AT cs DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp108.cs.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Mark Habersack wrote:
> 
> > > >> >Advantage djgpp: fastest-growing Dos compiler around.
> > >
> > > DOOM was compiled with Watcom, QUAKE with DJGPP...
> >
> > And DJGPP programs are very easily ported to UNIX!  A very big plus in
> > my books!
> 
> With one compiler you can produce programs for three OSs: DOS, Win95 &
> WinNT.
> And all this functionality takes 70% less disk space than with Borland,
> Watcom or M$ compilers.

DJGPP has exceptional technical support available by simply posting to a
newsgroup or mailing list, and the average response time is less than a
day.  Moreover, if you find a genuine bug, chances are somebody will
post a correction in less than a week!!!  Try THAT with Watcom or M$...

Results:
   DJGPP  WATCOM
     5      0

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| John M. Aldrich, aka Fighteer I  |        fighteer AT cs DOT com         |
|    *  Proud user of DJGPP!  *    |   http://www.cs.com/fighteer   |
|    ObJoke:  If Bill Gates were a robber, not only would he        |
|     shoot you, but he'd send you a bill for the bullets.          |
---------------------------------------------------------------------