From: Chris Croughton Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: To DJGPP programmers.......? Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 14:54:12 +0200 Message-ID: <3577EA74.5690@amc.de> References: <199806031248 DOT VAA18531 AT tiger1 DOT nownuri DOT net> <357729A8 DOT 378FFF84 AT cs DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bob.bob.bofh.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 46 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk John M. Aldrich wrote: > > ½Å¼®¿µ wrote: This presumably meant something once, but after mangling through character sets it looks to my like 1/2 Aring 1/4 (R) inverted-? mu... > > I like programming very much. And I have used some compilers. > > ( Borland C&C++, Asembler, Pascal,Visual C, DJGPP and etc..). > > I've found purposes or advantages of those compilers. > > > > Then, I have a question to you : > > "Why do you select the DJGPP in many compilers?" > > The original reason I chose DJGPP was that I had obtained the source > code to a popular Internet game during my stay at Georgia Tech and I > needed a reasonably Unix-like compiler on which to build it. This is my main reason, compatibility. And a flat address space with virtual memory (which you get with Win32 but at the cost of a very severe performance hit and several hundred megabytes of disk used). And it's free from licencing restrictions, and comes with full source code. And - hold on, this is the Monty Python sketch about the Spanish Inquisition, isn't it? Put it this way, then: I can take a very large number of Unix programs and 'port' them to DJGPP very easily (in a lot of cases 'porting' means simply recompiling the source). If I want to, I can hack them (or DJGPP or its libraries) to correct bugs. If I do correct bugs, I can easily submit them (not just a bug report but a patch to correct the bug) so that anyone can do an update without waiting for a manufacturer to sell me the next release a year later (and I can profit from othe people's patches, of course, it works both ways). Is that enough of a reason? In fact, I still do use Borland C/C++ for some things. It's a lot easier when doing intensive low-level DOS operations, for instance (messing around with DOS internals etc.), and I have some programs which are difficult to port from a 16-bit segmented architecture to a 32-bit flat one so I still sometimes have to maintain those. Horses for courses - sometimes I use DEBUG to write programs... Just my Pf3,6... Chris C