Xref: news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:2645
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Path: news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!bnelson
From: bnelson AT netcom DOT com (Bob Nelson)
Subject: Re: IDE for DJGPP?
Organization: a computer running Linux
References: <43uc9c$9oo AT gateway DOT cis DOT ysu DOT edu> <44bpaa$mil AT reznor DOT larc DOT nasa DOT gov>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 02:47:26 GMT
Lines: 28
Sender: bnelson AT netcom15 DOT netcom DOT com
To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Dj-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

On 27 Sep 1995, Terence Abbott (t DOT s DOT abbott AT larc DOT nasa DOT gov) wrote:

>> Having used Borland since its first release and DJGPP for the past 3
>> years, the overwhelming advantage of using Borland for code development
>> is its debugger.  It typically takes me 3-4 times longer to find
>> a problem using gbd or ladybug than it does with Borland.  My current
>> development environment is Borland with the PharLap DOS extender.  If
>> an equivalent debugger (with graphics support) were available for DJGPP,
>> I'd probably switch over to it for both development and run-time code
>> generation.

>> So to me, the big argument for the Borland IDE is NOT THE EDITOR, it is
>> the capabilities of the debugger.

Amen! The gdb interface under MS-DOS or Linux is vastly inferior, IMHO,
than Turbo Debugger. I tried xwpe to try to come close to the wonderful
Borland environment (under Linux) but that shoddy piece of software either
seg faults or simply hangs with the most basic of commands.

I will grant that gcc is a great compiler and that gdb is powerful -- but
RMS's belief that "all the world's a tty" doesn't compare to Borland's
interface with the debugger.

-- 
=============================================================================
          Bob Nelson: Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.  -  bnelson AT netcom DOT com
      Linux for fun, M$ for $$$...and the NFL for what really counts!
=============================================================================