From: quacci AT vera DOT com (jon) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Commercial Games Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:21:27 GMT Organization: Yale University Lines: 31 Message-ID: <335bf1e3.16753219@news.cis.yale.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-ppp-node-02.cs.yale.edu To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 15:49:48 GMT, "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" wrote: >Jon wrote: >> if it is good enough >> for the sort of cutting-edge, world-class programming technology guys >> like Carmack and Abrash put in to Quake, it is certainly good enough >> for most any DOS project brewing out there. IMHO. >Be sure of that, but I preffer to say: If DJGPP is good enough to compile gcc >then ... > >SET True enough, that is definitely a sign of it's strength. But the fact that DJGPP is a *DOS* compiler says to me that it is competing as much on the game-development front as with UNIX users needing a DOS port. I think to some extent it is the game market that keeps DOS alive. The best, most amazing games still are basically DOS programs, because of the depth of knowledge game makers have in the DOS environment, the history of effort in it, and the libraries to draw upon. And there still is nothing like getting down and dirty with a tiny, lousy-but-negotiable operating system to work around when it comes to games. DOS is a game platform! Anyway, DJGPP is to me the alternative to Watcom- and certainly in that role, it proves to be more than adequate, since it looks like the guys at Id (obviously as close to programming gurus as they come) dropped Watcom for DJGPP. Even if 90% of their core stuff is in assembler, I still think it says something that they felt DJGPP could meet their requirements for what they did want it for. Having the source code to the compiler you are going to base some part of your multi-million dollar product on must be a plus on that measure!