Mail Archives: djgpp/1993/03/16/16:28:49
> From: uunet!odie.ee.wits.ac.za!LIP
>
> My sugestion: FORGET about DPMI *.* -
> PLEASE concentrate on the important things like GDB
> - a source level debugger
> and other tools perhaps a source level profiler like TPROF although
> Gprof is quite good.
I cannot convey how much I disagree with this sentiment. I suppose it
depends on your perspective, or the development environment that you
want to use.
I'm a developer who has been working on Sun workstations for the last 5
years, and am using a PC at home, running Windows. I have tried to
emulate my work environment on the PC as much as possible for
development as a *developer*, but as a *user* of the PC, I'm running
commercial/shareware software.
As a *developer*, I am using commercial products rather than djgcc
precisely because djgcc's incompatibility with Windows and DPMI 0.9. I
would love to use the fsf utility ports that Mr. Backus made (sorry if
the name is wrong or misspelled -- I don't have one of your posting
handy), but they don't run in DOS windows. So, I have the GNUish
ports as well. Ditto for demacs -- I would kill to be able to use it
under windows, but have to resort to MicroEmacs :( and it's windows
port. As a *user*, I must also mention that there have been other apps
that I have run into that have been compiled with djgpp, and are
unusable under windows.
If I was to develop under DOS or X, the DPMI issue would go away.
Similiarly, if I was to use djgpp-built apps under DOS or X, I wouldn't
care. Even though Windows needs a 486 to perform, and it's not
NextStep or heaven help us, Motif or QWM, it is a pleasure to use, and
my family can also deal with it. If the DPMI issue was resolved, I'd
be where I'd like to be.
Eric
eweitzman AT esri DOT com, or 75020 DOT 1171 AT compuserve DOT com
PS I really do appreciate the DPMI issue, I see it as fairly intractable,
and fault Microsoft for their closed-system policies. Thanks for all
your sweat, DJ
- Raw text -