Path: news.mv.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news3.rdc1.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: AndrewJ Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: The Future of DJGPP Message-ID: References: <967904615 DOT 832712 AT shelley DOT paradise DOT net DOT nz> <8t32rsodgkia3rk2rok5fn57vcgta55nc5 AT 4ax DOT com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 107 Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 19:45:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.42.120.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse AT home DOT net X-Trace: news3.rdc1.on.home.com 967923954 24.42.120.18 (Sat, 02 Sep 2000 12:45:54 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 12:45:54 PDT Organization: Excite AT Home - The Leader in Broadband Xref: news.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:103107 >>"Use DJGPP for those projects which it is a suitable implementation, or, where >>possible, try to ensure that it will at least be compilable with the GNU >>tools." >> >>However, with Watcom going OpenSource, I think you'll find many people >>migrating away from DJGPP. Consider the following benefits and drawbacks >>[1][2][3] : >> >>DJGPP -> DOS pm executables > >Windows exes (through RSXNTDJ) >Exes for other configurations of GCC True. Forgot about those. >>Allegro library, open source (GPL), excellent code >>generators, confusing assembler syntax > >NASM (netwide assembler), a common DJGPP addon, fixes the >"Gas-backwards" AT&T syntax. NASM isn't an "official" part of DJGPP. I use NASM with Watcom too. :) >>sometimes confusing (cryptic names, I blame its UNIX'ish heritage ), >>excellent help (if you know where to look) > >.../djgpp/faq/djgppfaq.htm Yes, but some people (including myself, occasionally) have problems checking the FAQ for answers. >>Watcom -> DOS rm/pm executables, Win16g/32g/console executables, >>QNX executables, Novell NLM's and many other formats > >Nice... With Open Watcom, this list will surely be extended. Yes. I'd imagine they'll finally get ELF working properly. I also forgot to mention the various OS/2 executables. >>relatively simple to use (in comparison) > >How much harder is RHIDE than Watcom's IDE? RHIDE is no harder than, >say, Borland's. Watcom no longer has an IDE for DOS (did it ever?), only Windows (OS/2?). Hence, I don't consider it. Besides, anything that can be done in an IDE can be done in Makefiles. I just hope WMake moves towards a more GNU Make style and syntax. >>moderately good help (easy to find what you want, assuming it's >>there), excellent code generator, it will also be open source. > >But will it be truly Free? Some so-called "open source" software >isn't. Read about some of the "bad licenses" (APSL, Plan 9, etc.) >here: > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#LicensingFreeSoftware They are going to release it under the "Open Source License [insert some version I can't remember]". The general attitude I seem to get from the core developers I've conversed with is that you'll be able to do just about anything with it. >>[1] I'm not taking into consideration the portability issues between different >>ports of the GNU tools, which is a significant benefit for DJGPP > >Which is one reason I use MinGW rather than MSVC for compiling >Windows apps (I also like RHIDE better than Visual Studio). Fair enough. I agree. I really should download MinGW. >>[2] I'm also sure I'm missing a few for both, this is a quick list. > >Fixed partially. Are there any Watcom vs. DJGPP bullet lists on the >Net? Not that I know of, aside from Salvador's benchmarking tests. Perhaps someday I'll write up a full list, but I don't really feel it necessary. Each is excellent in its own right. >>[3] Why do 90% of my replies to you usually involve me dragging >>Watcom into it? I think over the years a subliminal message has >>been implanted deep in my mind. > >Me too, except I've been brainwashed by RMS and ESR. >>IMHO, the best setup is both! > >That is, once Open Watcom is bootstrapped into a 100% free product >that doesn't need the support of Closed USD$500+ Watcom. Yeah, that is the only bummer. But just wait a few months. Then you won't have to pay anything beyond your ISP's fees. OTO, you have to consider that Watcom/Powersoft/Sybase made a living by selling the compiler. It didn't work on a donations type system like the FSF does. >>And with it being open source, we'll probably see it start to >>migrate to other platforms (and other architectures, too)! > >I agree. It's about time for a full-scale competitor to GCC (no >offense LCC etc. but you need more supported platforms to compete). It would be nice, but I wouldn't say competition. More like friendly rivalry. ------- AndrewJ