Message-ID: <36851191.8D7B138D@montana.com> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 09:40:49 -0700 From: bowman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin ?? Rsxntdj ?? References: <199812261524 DOT PAA23894 AT remus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Arthur wrote: > > RSXNTDJ does have the problem of not being able to compile C++ all > that well, which limits its functionality with the Windows API. It is not necessary to use C++ for Windows API programming. I do it both ways, and prefer C. Unless you want to use MFC, there is little to be gained by C++. Also, there is no problem accessing COM objects in C, which opens up the entire DirectX set of tools. OpenGL is also usable. This is not meant to be a putdown of Allegro or WinAllegro. I am not a gamer, and really don't appreciate graphics programming, so I can't really evaluate the relative merits of each approach. If I were to, I'd seriously look at OpenGL or DirectX, if only that there is a lot more mainstream literature supporting either of these packages. On the Cygwin/MinGw32/rsxntdj choice: I believe Cygwin still requires a hefty .dll to ship with the app, while MinGw32 uses the native MS dll's. MinG does produce free code, while Cygwin might get into GPL complications. I've found rsxntdj will produce extremely small executables, compared to either of the above. I hope I am not fooling myself, and rsxnt stashed a huge dll someplace, but a minimal generic window with menu, tool and status bars weighs in a 8K versus 480K for MinG.