Message-Id:	<199711042226.JAA16092@rabble.uow.edu.au>
Subject:	Re: Watcom vs DJGPP
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP)
Date:	Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:26:01 +1100 (EST)
From:	Brett Porter <bporter AT rabble DOT uow DOT edu DOT au>
MIME-Version:	1.0

> 	Yes. It's true. WATCOM programs are faster(or the same speed) than
>         DJGPP ones!
> 
> 	It's a fact. I tried 7 programs, and WATCOM ones ran faster
> 	than DJGPP ones( the src code are the same ). Not much, about 4%.
> 	DJGPP's codes have never been faster than WATCOM's ones.
> 
It's a fact because 7 programs are faster? I'm sorry, but a fact is
something that is true all of the time, and I will guarantee that not every
program will be faster on Watcom. It depends on what you are doing.

The difference is very small, and you do all of your timing critical coding
in assembly anyway, so what is the difference? Well, as far as I see it,
DJGPP is free and has a great IDE that is DOS based so I can leave Windows
asleep. (It gets cranky when I wake it up occasionally, and randomly throws
HD clusters away, so I have to run Scandisk _again_ )

Look, to tell the truth, this thread has been raised several times here and
on rec.games.programmer. I would usually let it go until it dies, but it
won't die easily. I'm sorry to add just another follow-up to the thread, but
I beg of everyone, don't take my bad example! If you like Watcom, or you
like DJGPP (like me:), use it be, be happy, but don't feel the need to start
a holy war here! Each is good in their own way. Please leave it to private 
email if you must fly the flag.

I'm curious. Why do these Watcom devotees follow this NG anyway? 

Regards,
Brett Porter

-- 
"Who here believes in telekenesis? Raise MY hand!"
--
Brett Porter
bporter AT rabble DOT uow DOT edu DOT au

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Union/3596
	Humour, Programming, and more.

- Raw text -