From:	mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (George Foot)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++
Date:	Tue, 04 Feb 1997 03:27:40 GMT
Organization:	Oxford University
Lines:	34
Message-ID:	<32f6a990.43588457@news.ox.ac.uk>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970203181635 DOT 27257F-100000 AT is> <32F669B9 DOT 515F AT cs DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	mc31.merton.ox.ac.uk
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:42:01 -0800, "John M. Aldrich"
<fighteer AT cs DOT com> wrote:

>Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> 
>> > I admit that I am a loner in that I never grew fond of BC or
>> > it's IDE, but I'm not imagining the problems I had with it.
>> 
>> You are not alone in this, trust *me*.
>
>And me as well.  :)  I have had some brief experience with both Borland
>C and Turbo C and found both to be really lacking in many respects.

Heh... the voting could get even more annoying than the flaming ;)

I personally also prefer DJGPP, which is why I use this newsgroup.
However, I don't think it is fair to compare the two - I think it is
quite possible that some people will prefer one and some the other,
and personally I think we should accept this fact and leave it. This
debate is almost as impossible as a debate between religious sects -
there will be disagreements, and no one group will be able to convert
all of the other.

I am, of course, in favour of schemes to help people who are using
DJGPP for the first time, both programming newbies and ex-Borlanders.
But I don't really care whether people would rather use Borland
(unless they're friends of mine). Let them do as they please, and
hopefully they'll stop attempting to degrade DJGPP or gcc in general.

(This isn't intended in any way to insult anyone who has posted
arguing either way - it's just my opinion)

George Foot

- Raw text -