Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 18:42:57 -0700 (MST) From: firewind To: Joel Rosenthal cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: The numer 1 compiler, DJGPP or MSVC Here's a good rating comparision In-Reply-To: <34131883.29A3@mho.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Your points are incomplete and refuse to acknowledge the points that I brought forward. The point you choose to dwell on is that MSVC is good for Windows programming. This "advantage" of MSVC over DJGPP has long since been overcome. It seems to me that your knowledge in these matters is insufficient for such a discussion. On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Joel Rosenthal wrote: > You said DJGPP can produce windows programs? NO! Yes! RSXNTDJ! (Sorry, that's probably the wrong name, I don't personally use the package) > Youc can get Cyrix, another port of GCC, and there is an add on you can Cyrix is a processor from IBM. Cygnus is a company producing a Win32 version of gcc. > get to make windows programs in DJGPP, but MSVC is THE thing for Windows But, you just said you -can't- do Windows with DJGPP? Can you please make up your mind? > programing. Aslo, with MSVC, everything is is one package. With DJ, > things are from different companies and different makers. The main parts of DJGPP are from GNU. There are a couple add-ons, most of which I personally feel have much higher quality than anything from Microsloth. BTW, if you find a bug in MSVC, can you personally fix it? > MSVC can do everything DJGPP does, and more: windows programmming, plus Here you are changing your position again! Well, -can- DJGPP do Windows or not? Make up your mind. > a lot of other goodies. Name these goodies. You seem unable. > Besides the Game Quake, professionals don't use free compileres And Quake, man, that's just such an inconsequential program, isn't it? At any rate, just because a company is too stupid to understand that free software often has higher quality than commercial software doesn't automagically make that higher quality go away. Your statement proves less than nothing.