From: Dominique DOT Biesmans AT REMOVETHISping DOT be (Dominique Biesmans)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: lcc-win32
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:23:31 GMT
Organization: EUnet Belgium, Leuven, Belgium
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <34ec69ac.430312@news.eunet.be>
References: <6cfsto$m7v$1 AT nclient3-gui DOT server DOT virgin DOT net> <34EB3965 DOT 6B15 AT cam DOT org>
Reply-To: Dominique DOT Biesmans AT REMOVETHISping DOT be
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup114.leuven.eunet.be
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 21:41:25 +0200, Vic <tudor AT cam DOT org> wrote:

In fact, lcc is, somewhat like gcc, a portable or 'retargetable'
compiler. But yes, lcc-win32 is designed, specifically for win32, what
makes it more suitable for win32-programming. And, what's more
important, it's much more flexible towards the __stdcall keyword, so
it can parse the standard windows header-files with not much problems.
Too bad it's C-only.

>Jason Eccles wrote:
>> 
>> I am just starting out with this win32 stuff and I want to pick the best,
>> free, c++ compiler for the job. Should I use djgpp / rsxntdj or lcc-win32.
>> And why ??
>to be honest, I think you should use LCC. Don't get me wrong, I love
>DJGPP, but it is a DOS compiler. You should use LCC cause:
>-it's a lot smaller! it's like 2 or 3 megs in a zip file, compared to
>about ten or so (DJGPP+RSX)
>-even if DJGPP is free, there are some legal issues with RSX, which
>don't exist with LCC
>-I think LCC was designed especially for win32 developement, so it would
>just be better.
>Whatever. this is just my opinion.
>-- 
>--> http://www.cam.org/~tudor <--