From:	Tudor <tudor AT cam DOT org>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Ideas for DJGPP.
Date:	Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:26:19 -0800
Organization:	Communications Accesibles Montreal
Lines:	28
Message-ID:	<329CDC2B.1B5F@cam.org>
References:	<Pine DOT OSF DOT 3 DOT 93 DOT 961111075629 DOT 21834A-100000 AT sparrow DOT qut DOT edu DOT au> <3286978F DOT 714F AT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au>
Reply-To:	tudor AT cam DOT org
NNTP-Posting-Host:	dynamicppp-229.hip.cam.org
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Leath Muller wrote:
> As for showing the differences between the major compilers, I really
> have
> to ask why? If someone isn't coding in Ansi C, it must be assumed that
> they have a rough idea of what they are coding. If they understand and
> know
> what they are coding, such as inline asm, it is generally easy to move
> between the differing compilers... well, I found this anyway...
> 
> > This is the reason that most newcomers go to a comercial compiler.
> 
> The reason most people go to a commercial compiler is: Quality. People
> expect quality out of something they pay for. As I have found out, when
> it comes to compilers - this is crap. Borland sux _BIG_ time. DJGPP is
> free, and most people have the attitude "Ha! Free? Must be crap!" which
> is completely incorrect on the part of DJGPP, this is the best compiler
> I have ever used in respect to: customer support, backup, and
> assistance...
> :)
> 
> Leathal.
Well,some comments:
I don't really think Borland __sux__ at compilers,just at the windoze
version 4.0.
I also think Borland's Turbo C++ is very good(and even better than
djgpp) for a newcomer to programming or C/C++.
Don't get me wrong,djgpp is by far better and more complex than turbo
C++,but for a newcomer,djgpp's complexity can really be confusing.

- Raw text -