From: Tudor Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Ideas for DJGPP. Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:26:19 -0800 Organization: Communications Accesibles Montreal Lines: 28 Message-ID: <329CDC2B.1B5F@cam.org> References: <3286978F DOT 714F AT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au> Reply-To: tudor AT cam DOT org NNTP-Posting-Host: dynamicppp-229.hip.cam.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Leath Muller wrote: > As for showing the differences between the major compilers, I really > have > to ask why? If someone isn't coding in Ansi C, it must be assumed that > they have a rough idea of what they are coding. If they understand and > know > what they are coding, such as inline asm, it is generally easy to move > between the differing compilers... well, I found this anyway... > > > This is the reason that most newcomers go to a comercial compiler. > > The reason most people go to a commercial compiler is: Quality. People > expect quality out of something they pay for. As I have found out, when > it comes to compilers - this is crap. Borland sux _BIG_ time. DJGPP is > free, and most people have the attitude "Ha! Free? Must be crap!" which > is completely incorrect on the part of DJGPP, this is the best compiler > I have ever used in respect to: customer support, backup, and > assistance... > :) > > Leathal. Well,some comments: I don't really think Borland __sux__ at compilers,just at the windoze version 4.0. I also think Borland's Turbo C++ is very good(and even better than djgpp) for a newcomer to programming or C/C++. Don't get me wrong,djgpp is by far better and more complex than turbo C++,but for a newcomer,djgpp's complexity can really be confusing.