Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:37:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200002161737.MAA05899@indy.delorie.com>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To: "Andrew Jones" <luminous-is AT home DOT com>
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <n8wq4.48715$45.2630926@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>
	(luminous-is AT home DOT com)
Subject: Re: <Damian Y>  Re: It's back, but the ...
References: <7r4q4.45719$45 DOT 2400743 AT news2 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com> <tqnias8k4o0486d553ivbr63ascnnm5arm AT 4ax DOT com> <n8wq4.48715$45 DOT 2630926 AT news2 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> But some people who want to start programming honestly don't even
> know what AUTOEXEC.BAT is!  Or what an environment variable is.  Or that just
> using GCC will call the C, C++, Objective-C or assembler, depending on the
> extention of the file.  These are problems inherent in most compilers, but
> DJGPP makes it painfully obvious.  It is derived from a UNIX tool, and hence
> is by nature going to be confusing and cryptic.

DJGPP already hides LOTS of these setup problems.  Look at DJGPP.ENV,
and you will understand how much *more* complex the setup would be
without that automagic.  Nothing, including DJGPP's origins, can
prevent somebody from creating an installer that hides what's left
(setting PATH and DJGPP variables).

I believe it's a question of resource allocation, nothing more.  In
other words, nobody has yet have enough motivation and deliberation to
sit down and make it happen.  Perhaps it's not such a big problem
after all...

> > >32-bit protected-mode DOS,
> >
> > Any better than DJGPP?
> 
> I personally think that Watcom's PM DOS is better and more flexible.

Some people, like Shawn Hargreaves, have an exactly opposite view.
YMMV.

> But that's probably because I understand it better than DJGPP's
> method of doing things.

FWIW, the DJGPP's way of doing things is explained in this URL:

  http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/eli-m17n99.html

> > >Watcom was, and IMHO still is, *the best* optimizing compiler
> > > available (for DOS at least).
> >
> > Noted.  But have you tried PGCC lately?
> 
> I tried fiddling around, but the last I checked, you could use an
> older version binary, or patch the sources and build it yourself.
> Has anyone released an updated binary?

You shouldn't need PGCC anymore, since GCC 2.95.x and later produces
code that is as good as PGCC of yore (and latest versions of PGCC
aren't stable enough).

Btw, comparison shows that GCC now produces code that's better than
Watcom's, see the compiler comparison page cited in the FAQ.