Xref: news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:1350 Path: news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!news.uni-c.dk!diku.dk!terra From: terra AT diku DOT dk (Morten Welinder) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: ** Comparison between DJGPP V2 & WATCOM C V10 ** Date: 2 Aug 1995 14:05:02 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen Lines: 40 Sender: terra AT tyr DOT diku DOT dk 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> Nntp-Posting-Host: odin.diku.dk To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu Dj-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp jmccarty AT spd DOT dsccc DOT com (Mike McCarty) writes: >In article <3vlbk8$58b AT odin DOT diku DOT dk>, Morten Welinder wrote: [...] >This fellow has hard facts to support a claim. You present nothing but >arrogance. This is not true. There was one program used for what was marketed as a "Comparison between DJGPP V2 & WATCOM C V10". Moreover that program was a hello-world program (a program that doesn't do anything interesting) and not an application (a useful program). This is not the mark of a serious comparison. Had he used, e.g., gzip as a test object I would have been a lot more impressed. Based on this "examination", the poster in effect tells us that DJGPP V2 is shit and would we please do it all over? Thank you very much. >Present [...] or just shut up and go away. To keep the style: you haven't check the mail archives, have you? Just a month and a half ago I posted an analysis/explanation on this exact topic. It's here: http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/djgpp/1995/06/18/14:17:25 In the same thread DJ gave advice on how to reduce the code size by not linking in things you don't need: http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/djgpp/1995/06/18/10:11:18 It wasn't really difficult to find these in the archives, and I'm sure there are a lot more discussion on the subject in there. Morten Welinder terra AT diku DOT dk