From: Tudor <tudor AT cam DOT org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: How could DJGPP remain the best?
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:16:23 -0800
Organization: Communications Accesibles Montreal
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <32D6F7F7.73E7@cam.org>
References: <5b5l0r$b3h AT nexp DOT crl DOT com>
Reply-To: tudor AT cam DOT org
NNTP-Posting-Host: dynamicppp-172.hip.cam.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Weiqi Gao wrote:
> 
> OK, it's Friday, and I'm have free-flowing thoughts.
> 
> One of them is this:  We keep hearing that DJGPP is the best compiler
> in its class.  But how could that be so if the complete source code is
> awailable publicly.  Couldn't the people at, say, Watcom, simply
> examine the code and come up with better ideas?
Enter free thoughts mode:
Well,
1) I think that all the code is copyright even if the compiler is
free.Of course,they could take ideeas form it,anyways.But,
2)DJGPP is just a port(with some cool stuff added for dos)of GCC.
GCC has been around for a while,now.
And before DJGPP,in the UNIX world you heard like"GCC is the best
compiler around coz ..." etc etc(of course they still say that and it's
kinda true).
So,if the guys at Borland or Watcom were smart enough they could have
taken the GCC sources to see how a __good__ compiler is supposed to be
made.
Exit whatever mode I was in.
Sorry,enter back into mode:
3)if Whoever comes with a compiler at least as good as DJGPP,who will
make me pay for it and accept all the corporate policy bullshit when I
have DJGPP which is free etc?
Exit for good.
-- 
tudor 'at' cam 'dot' org
yoda69 'at' hotmail 'dot' com
http://www.cam.org/~tudor

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d-(--) s(-):(+) a? C+ UL>++++ P L>+++++ E- W++ N o K---(----) w---
O---- M-- V-? PS+++ PE Y PGP t+ 5-- X+++>++++ R tv b+ DI D+ G e->++
h>++ r- y>+++++ 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------