Xref: news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:1324 Path: news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!rice!news!sandmann From: Charles Sandmann Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: ** Comparison between DJGPP V2 & WATCOM C V10 ** Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 09:30:35 CDT Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas Lines: 28 References: <3vl892$4q AT news DOT irisa DOT fr> <3vlbk8$58b AT odin DOT diku DOT dk> <3vmbge$ekf AT sun001 DOT spd DOT dsccc DOT com> Reply-To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu Nntp-Posting-Host: clio.rice.edu To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu Dj-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp > This is about the 2nd most ridiculous post I've seen on such subjects. > This fellow has hard facts to support a claim. You present nothing but > arrogance. Present some numbers to back up your claim that with Actually, I felt the original post was a bit arrogant (I wondered if the guy worked for Watcom, actually). OK, I don't have Watcom, so maybe it is the best thing out there. But lets do a real comparison, instead of a meaningless blurb. Proposed test: 1) Image size comparison must include all code needed to run in the following environments: Naked config.sys, himem only, emm386, windows, on a distributed image. 2) Image should call a minimum of 10 external functions and use the argc, argv. Wildcard expansion should be supported in both or a non-glob setup be used in V2 image. Environment variables and signals should be used. BTW, I seldom use the C++ portion, but I was very surprised at the size bloat there (I think something is wrong). With a different libc, I have written V2 images which happily run with a total size of around 18K on the hello-world thing, so I know its a feature issue. But I can do the same functionality as the "hello world" type prog in a 50 *byte* .com file, so does that mean that assembler is always 500 times smaller than Watcom? See how ridiculous these comparisons can be?