Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/09/02/16:00:05.3
>>"Use DJGPP for those projects which it is a suitable implementation, or, where
>>possible, try to ensure that it will at least be compilable with the GNU
>>tools."
>>
>>However, with Watcom going OpenSource, I think you'll find many people
>>migrating away from DJGPP. Consider the following benefits and drawbacks
>>[1][2][3] :
>>
>>DJGPP -> DOS pm executables
>
>Windows exes (through RSXNTDJ)
>Exes for other configurations of GCC
True. Forgot about those.
>>Allegro library, open source (GPL), excellent code
>>generators, confusing assembler syntax
>
>NASM (netwide assembler), a common DJGPP addon, fixes the
>"Gas-backwards" AT&T syntax.
NASM isn't an "official" part of DJGPP. I use NASM with Watcom too. :)
>>sometimes confusing (cryptic names, I blame its UNIX'ish heritage <g>),
>>excellent help (if you know where to look)
>
>.../djgpp/faq/djgppfaq.htm
Yes, but some people (including myself, occasionally) have problems checking
the FAQ for answers.
>>Watcom -> DOS rm/pm executables, Win16g/32g/console executables,
>>QNX executables, Novell NLM's and many other formats
>
>Nice... With Open Watcom, this list will surely be extended.
Yes. I'd imagine they'll finally get ELF working properly. I also forgot to
mention the various OS/2 executables.
>>relatively simple to use (in comparison)
>
>How much harder is RHIDE than Watcom's IDE? RHIDE is no harder than,
>say, Borland's.
Watcom no longer has an IDE for DOS (did it ever?), only Windows (OS/2?).
Hence, I don't consider it. Besides, anything that can be done in an IDE can
be done in Makefiles. I just hope WMake moves towards a more GNU Make style
and syntax.
>>moderately good help (easy to find what you want, assuming it's
>>there), excellent code generator, it will also be open source.
>
>But will it be truly Free? Some so-called "open source" software
>isn't. Read about some of the "bad licenses" (APSL, Plan 9, etc.)
>here:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#LicensingFreeSoftware
They are going to release it under the "Open Source License [insert some
version I can't remember]". The general attitude I seem to get from the core
developers I've conversed with is that you'll be able to do just about anything
with it.
>>[1] I'm not taking into consideration the portability issues between different
>>ports of the GNU tools, which is a significant benefit for DJGPP
>
>Which is one reason I use MinGW rather than MSVC for compiling
>Windows apps (I also like RHIDE better than Visual Studio).
Fair enough. I agree. I really should download MinGW.
>>[2] I'm also sure I'm missing a few for both, this is a quick list.
>
>Fixed partially. Are there any Watcom vs. DJGPP bullet lists on the
>Net?
Not that I know of, aside from Salvador's benchmarking tests. Perhaps someday
I'll write up a full list, but I don't really feel it necessary. Each is
excellent in its own right.
>>[3] Why do 90% of my replies to you usually involve me dragging
>>Watcom into it? I think over the years a subliminal message has
>>been implanted deep in my mind.
>
>Me too, except I've been brainwashed by RMS and ESR.
<G>
>>IMHO, the best setup is both!
>
>That is, once Open Watcom is bootstrapped into a 100% free product
>that doesn't need the support of Closed USD$500+ Watcom.
Yeah, that is the only bummer. But just wait a few months. Then you won't
have to pay anything beyond your ISP's fees. OTO, you have to consider that
Watcom/Powersoft/Sybase made a living by selling the compiler. It didn't work
on a donations type system like the FSF does.
>>And with it being open source, we'll probably see it start to
>>migrate to other platforms (and other architectures, too)!
>
>I agree. It's about time for a full-scale competitor to GCC (no
>offense LCC etc. but you need more supported platforms to compete).
It would be nice, but I wouldn't say competition. More like friendly rivalry.
-------
AndrewJ
- Raw text -