From: Tudor <tudor AT cam DOT org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Another newbie question:  Watcom or DJGPP???
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 18:47:47 -0800
Organization: Communications Accesibles Montreal
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <32ACCF53.3F09@cam.org>
References: <32AA42A7 DOT 19BB AT flash DOT net>
Reply-To: tudor AT cam DOT org
NNTP-Posting-Host: dynappp-42.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

Patrick / Albert Fong wrote:
> 
> To any DJGPP user:
> 
>   Could you help me decide if I should get Watcom C/C++ 10.6 or this
>   current version of DJGPP?
> 
>   Basically, I want to move up to a 32-bit compiler (I'm stuck with
>   TC 3.0 for DOS (eeeeewwww....) ) and I can't decide which to get.
> 
>   Will Watcom be worth the money, or is DJGPP just like it?
> 
> Thanks to all in advance!
I don't think Watcom's worth it.
They usually say gcc is the best C compiler around coz it makes faster 
and smaller code and with less chances to get an error.
Considering DJGPP is a port of gcc,I think it's better than watcom.
-- 
tudor 'at' cam 'dot' com
http://www.cam.org/~tudor 

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
     Version: 3.1
     GCS d(-)@>-- s-()>+:(+)>- a--- C+(++)>+++>$ ULC(+)@>++++
P+(+)>++++>$
     L(+)>+++++>$ E-(--)?>++ W++(++)>+++>$ N(+)@>+++ o(-)?>+
K---(----)?>-
     w(---)@>-- !O--(----)>++ !M(+)>- V--(-)?>-- PS--(-)?>+++ !PE(+)>-
     Y(+)>++>$ PGP+(++)>++++>$ t---(+++)@>+++ !5(-)>-- X++(+++)>$>++++
     R+()>+++>$ tv(+)@>++ b+(++)?>+++ DI-(--)?>--- !D(+)>+++ G++(+)@
     e-()>++++>$ h(--)?>++ !r(--)?>+++ !y(--)>+++++@
     ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------