Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 12:02:26 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: watcom c/c++ vs djgpp? In-Reply-To: <37F5A024.1ABC@earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Rez wrote: > > it produced fast code, > > Not for I/O-intensive apps :( Please post code that shows how DJGPP-compiled programs are slower than Watcom's, and measurements that demonstrate the relative speed quantitatively. > Try news://forums.sybase.com/powersoft.public.watcom_c_c++.general > Folk there will bend over backwards trying to help anyone who needs it. > I read both here and there, and I will say the watcom ng is a LOT more > newbie-friendly. If there are aspects to this newbie-friendliness beyond the "RTFM" trend (to which I relate below), please point out where we could do better. I don't read the Watcom news group, so I don't know what did you have in mind when you wrote this. > An unfortunate but widespread trend in the open source > world is that the first response to any newbie question is usually > "RTFM" and if the docs are beyond their current understanding, tough. Please give examples of this misbehavior in this news group. As far as I know, we don't simply say "RTFM", we say something like this: This question is answered in section X.Y of the FAQ. If something there is not clear enough, please post specific questions. Given that the full reply to a non-trivial question is usually quite long (see the average length of each section in the FAQ), and that a non-full reply runs a risk of missing cricual details, could you please tell why this is not a good policy, and how can it be made better?