Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
From: cigna AT helios DOT phy DOT OhioU DOT Edu (Dave Cigna)
Subject: Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++
Message-ID: <E4sLLu.2Iw@boss.cs.ohiou.edu>
Sender: news AT boss DOT cs DOT ohiou DOT edu (News Admin)
Organization: Ohio University Physics and Astronomy
References: <199701291250 DOT HAA05157 AT freenet2 DOT freenet DOT ufl DOT edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 23:08:18 GMT
Lines: 43
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

<afn03257 AT afn DOT org> wrote:
>Nope. GCC, has not always been 100% fully ANSI complaint, there were
>"features" that made it act differently. Read the docs on the GCC
>updates line through the times, Often and I mean very often, bug XX
>fixed to aquire more ANSI conformance, etc.. was written.

Do you have any real experience using these compilers, or have you
just read the docs thoroughly?

You've made two broad claims:

  1) Borland C is comparatively bug free, while DJGPP (GCC in
     particular) is infested.

  2) Borland C is virtually ANSI compliant, while GCC has been
     continually struggling to acheive ANSI compliance.

The thing is, you've offered no evidence whatsoever except for
some references to GCC bug reports and updates. (You might want
to consider the fact that Gnu's policy on such things is *ENTIRELY*
different from Borlands.)

I have used both compilers, as well as a variety of others, and
my own entirely anecdotal (but entirely real) experience is that
GCC is by far the most bug free compiler on the planet. (I removed
Borland from my HD and gave away the diskettes and books; I couldn't 
stand it locking up or rebooting my machine anymore.) Exactly the
same goes for it's ANSI compliance. I have found that my code
behaves as predicted far more often with GCC than any other compiler.
(Borland is king of added 'features' that make their products 
non-standard. Just look at Turbo Pascal!)

>>The difference is that in the case of GCC, DJGPP and the rest of free 
>>software, I usually get a solution or a work-around for any problem in
>>a few days, whereas with commercial products I must wait much longer,
>>and sometimes I'm told I'm on my own.
>
>This is true, however, technically you could patch the comercial
>software yourself with a debugger.

What planet are you from?

 -- Dave Cigna