From:	afn03257 AT freenet3 DOT afn DOT org (Daniel P Hudson)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++
Date:	27 Jan 1997 03:47:40 GMT
Lines:	47
Message-ID:	<5ch8gs$qps@huron.eel.ufl.edu>
References:	<5c1qik$9sh AT lion DOT cs DOT latrobe DOT edu DOT au>
	<32E98087 DOT 6A50 AT cs DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	freenet3.afn.org
NNTP-Posting-User:	afn03257
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

"John M. Aldrich" <fighteer AT cs DOT com> wrote:
>Gregary J Boyles wrote:
>>
>> On the whole I have found Borland C++ compilers to be among the most
unreliable and unpredictable products on the market. Has any one else
encountered the
>> same problems and how does djgpp compare to them?

>Borland is well-known for its bugginess.  DJGPP, OTOH, has consistently
>proven to be better and more reliable than any other compiler it

 I doubt that. GCC is about as buggy as Borland DOS products are, and
 GCC is what you're calling DJGPP. DJGPP is the environment for GCC to
 run under DOS and has added more bugs to the package. How long did it
 take GCC to be ANSI complaint again? Hmm..

>competes with.  That's not to say that DJGPP is without bugs, but if
>ou should discover one, chances are it will be fixed and patches made
>available less than a week after you report it.  Usually it takes only
>one or two days.

 Borland HAS ALWAYS made patches avaiable very quickly from their 
 web/ftp sites.

>This is the real advantage of a user-supported freeware compiler;
>because of the vast number of people who work and contribute, the
>chances are good that anything you need that's not part of the standard
>distributions has already been done or is being done by somebody else!

 This is good?

>The biggest hurdle to making DJGPP a complete and total success is the
>lack of direct Windows support.  A package named RSXNTDJ does exist to
>write Win32 native code for DJGPP, but I understand it to be somewhat
>temperamental, and it doesn't have a visual design interface or
>debugging tools.  All of this will be fixed though, given time.  :)

 Point in hand, Borland C++ targets DOS16, DOS32, WIN3x, WIN95, OS/2,
 and NT while GCC targets DOS32 only. Therefore Borland has a lot more
 code to screw-up, and that doesn't consider the IDE, and other tools it
 comes with. GCC and DJGPP are as buggy as the old Borland DOS based
 systems were. Large software packages are going to have bugs, there
 is no way around it. Borland products are not excesively buggy. They
 got that reputation because they admit they have bugs and release
 patches unlike varoius other vendors. Both products are worth having
 in your arsenal of tools, Borland's for its range of platforms if
 nothing else.

- Raw text -