Message-ID:	<37C2A3BD.36668FD6@montana.com>
From:	bowman <bowman AT montana DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586)
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: fall of rsxntdj??
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990824084302 DOT 12112H-100000 AT is>
Lines:	30
Date:	Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:53:01 -0600
NNTP-Posting-Host:	208.4.224.54
X-Trace:	newsfeed.slurp.net 935502526 208.4.224.54 (Tue, 24 Aug 1999 08:48:46 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Tue, 24 Aug 1999 08:48:46 CDT
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> That would probably not work well, due to all kind of nice features
> offered by DJGPP that break when you invoke DJGPP tools from a non-DJGPP
> program.

What did you have in mind? There are many styles and possibilities, but
when working in Windows, I typically use bash, make, grep, and so forth
during the development process, but I don't invoke any djgpp code from
the Windows app. The Windows culture evolved from the VC++ or Borland
compilers, neither of which never offered much of a toolset, discounting
the IDE wizards.

> IMHO, currently Cygwin tools have too many subtle bugs.

Thought it was just me and inavertant mixing and matching. 

> This is one of the incompatibilities I mentioned above.  It alone would
> preclude you from building any GNU package.

I think that is a different area. Cygwin is filling the gnu->windows
niche. The people looking for a solid and free C or C++ compiler that
can generate windows apps may have very little knowledge/interest in the
bulk of GNU. Given an editor like PFE, the 'tools' may well stop at
make. For that level of interaction, the djgpp kit works well. 

-- 
Bear Technology  Making Montana safe for Grizzlies

http://people.montana.com/~bowman/

- Raw text -