From:	"Mike Winsor" <mwinsor AT hotmail DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Complaints about DJGPP
Date:	23 May 1997 17:01:03 GMT
Organization:	HookUp Communication Corporation, St. John's, Newfoundland, CANADA
Lines:	32
Message-ID:	<01bc66d1$d734efe0$5514a8c0@j.downey.gnat.thezone.net>
References:	<199705190944 DOT FAA21829 AT delorie DOT com> <338373f8 DOT 2314720 AT usenet DOT nau DOT edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	gnat.thezone.net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Methinks that this guy should go and waste his money on Watcom 10.x or 11.0
if he's not happy with the compiler.  I've used both compilers, and on a
486DX 25 (so I know about speed in compilation).  Watcom wasn't as fast,
didn't have an editor supplied for DOS, and it's code isn't faster then
DJGPP, actually on my 486 it ran somewhat slower!  As for pentium
optimization... well a pentium computer will never catch on :)  Well I'm
sure DJ is addressing this.  Oh and the best thing about DJGPP is that it's
free, watcom expensive, djgpp free, why would you want to pay for watcom or
another dos based compiler?  The code that gets generated is very fast on
my 486 and I've never been disappointed by it.  This loser should go to
windows programming because he is too much of a sissy to program in DOS.
AND in regard (and I can't believe this idiot below) to space DJGPP takes
10 megs on my computer, plus 1-2 megs for RHIDE and 1-2 megs for ALLEGRO. 
So for me that's about 12-14 megs.  That's a far cry from Watcom or Visual
C++, the installation for them is HUGE watcom can be put down to the
smallest configuration of about 20 megs and then you're skimping on
everything including help files... this guy should do his homework before
comparing compilers.  DJ has put out a great product and as far as I can
see people like this guy are burden to him.

Mike

Michael D. Ryan <dbrotherhood AT geocities DOT com> wrote in article
<338373f8 DOT 2314720 AT usenet DOT nau DOT edu>...
> On Mon, 19 May 1997 09:44:52 GMT, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> >> I still stand by djgpp taking up lots of space- a fullish install
takes up
> >> about 100 meg, of which approx. 50% is wasted due to the loads of
small
> >> files and the essence of FAT16. I don't just mean the include files-
they
 

- Raw text -