Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/09/14/22:34:51
How about making a version of Allegro that works
with all sorts of DOS compliers such as Turbo C++?
6f98982f AT news DOT videotron DOT net> <341baf04 DOT 0 AT 139 DOT 134 DOT 5 DOT 33>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp076.216.msherb.videotron.net
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk
In group rec.games.programmer, Herman Schoenfeld says...
> In article <MPG DOT e831ef3f3b7c46f98982f AT news DOT videotron DOT net>,
> sumatose AT NOSPAM DOT usa DOT net says...
> >In group rec.games.programmer, Herman Schoenfeld says...
> >> MSVC++ is not a tool for game programming. DJGPP/Watcom certainatly are.
> >
> >Tell that to ID software and others.
>
> Development under MSVC++ is prefered for many reasons.
>
> It's stable. It works fine with NT. It's okay at building code. It
> catches errors. However, most final releases would (and should) be Watcom or
> DJGPP.
>
> ie, take a look at Fury 3 and Terminal Velocity. They are both the same game,
> exactly the same engine, same enemies etc except Fury 3 is Win95/NT MSVC++ game
> while terminal velocity is DOS Watcom.
>
> I get a higher frame rate on terminal velocity on my 486 DX2/66 8meg 1meg
> Trident card than on a P133 16meg 2meg 2meg S3 card.
>
Hooo, com'on Herman! It's been said here and elsewhere that
djgpp just isn't good at optimizing. Don't get all blinded by
MS-Hate, ok? VC++ has been proven many times to outperform or be
on par with Watcom, and djgpp has never been near, especially
with Pentium optimizations. In fact, gcc is trailing on other
platforms also. BTW: the real geniuses of compiler optimization
work for money, and at places like Inter, Watcom, MS, IBM,
borland, ect.., not in their basements (though they certainly
have stared there).
- Raw text -