From: "Andrew Jones" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp References: <7r4q4.45719$45 DOT 2400743 AT news2 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com> <38AAB557 DOT 227B9616 AT a DOT crl DOT com> Subject: Re: Re: It's back, but the ... Lines: 82 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:00:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.42.120.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse AT home DOT net X-Trace: news2.rdc1.on.home.com 950817656 24.42.120.18 (Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:00:56 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:00:56 PST Organization: @Home Network Canada To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com > "You should have received a copy of the GPL along with your software!" > Read it, and then argue. First of all, this wasn't an argument. I was commenting on Damian's Mini-FAQ. Tell me, have your read the entire GPL? I can't be bothered, since I get the gist of it. > It's not so much a promotion as a proof of adequacy. Knowing that DJGPP > was used in one product where performance is critical gives me > confidence that DJGPP is for real. Uhm... buddy... he already (sort of) admitted to my points, and has made changes (that wasn't what I was going after, but hey). And big deal... one game. One large, incredibly successful game backed by how many years of successful games from id? I would imagine that they could have written it in Visual Basic and it would have done just as well commercially. (I am not stating that VB has the cababilities for this, just that if it had been done...) > To use your logic, we can say, ... and the reason that some people use > for these projects is that they don't > have/don't want to spend hundreds (or thousands) of minutes on a C > compiler. is expensive. Expensiveness is > wonderful, but doesn't make a product great by default. ... Sorry, this went right over my head. I don't get the first few lines here. And I have never stated that expensiveness makes a great product. However, one of Damian's constant selling points on DJGPP is that it is free. He has done this in his Mini-FAQ and in general posts (Even to people who want to do something in Turbo C). No offense, Damian, since I've done the same with Watcom. =) > The point being, whether a compiler is great or not has nothing to do > with whether it's free, or open source, or is the most expensive on the > block. A compiler is great if it is great. End of argument. If it is > free, it's an added bonus (for me). If it is expensive, it's an added > bonus (for you?). ? Sure ? My point to Damian is that Watcom is not the horrible compiler he seems to make it out to be. And his sole basis for this thus far has been that it is expensive. But I ask this, then. How much does Visual C++ cost in your local currency? It's expensive. I can't afford it right now. But what are most commercial games being developed in? Visual C++. Quake 3 was Visual C++... Quake 2... does this make VC++ a great compiler? "Oooohh... Quake was written in DJGPP." Wow. Doom was in Watcom. Quake 2 in VC++. So what? So... what makes DJGPP great? What I've heard so far is: it's free, and Quake was written with it. Does that define its greatness? > Then they have a lot to learn. Hopefully they haven't be damaged by the > education system too much so as to be unable to learn. What > AUTOEXEC.BAT does is documented in the documentation that comes with the > operating system. It takes half a day to read it. It takes a few hours > to practice it. And then they DO know what AUTOEXEC.BAT is. I spent a few minutes in Start->Help looking for autoexec.bat. Not that helpful. > Good for you. Would you like to take a look at my version of DJGPP, on > a CD-ROM, it costs only $1200.00! :) > > [That's another joke, volks!] Not particularily amusing, however. I have my own views and opinions. This does not make me an idiot. > > I just wanted to point a few things out mostly because your derisiveness to > > Watcom bothers me somewhat. It would be like me saying that DJGPP sucks > > because it's free and thus can't have the level of support that a commercial > > compiler can (I know, that's not the case with DJGPP, but that's probably due > > to its popularity). Note that this is a mindset that quite a few people have. > > They have to be educated then! Right... well, get started. AndrewJ