From: "Russ Williams" Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,rec.games.programmer Subject: Re: The numer 1 compiler, DJGPP or MSVC Here's a good rating comparision Date: 15 Sep 1997 09:01:39 GMT Organization: UUNet UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet UK) Lines: 78 Message-ID: <01bcc1b6$1f9cce30$2b40cbc2@russnt> References: <3412BD25 DOT 1F30 AT mho DOT net> <3412DDA8 DOT C428AF45 AT a DOT crl DOT com> <341316EA DOT E14 AT mho DOT net> <34158665 DOT 8731090 AT news DOT concentric DOT net> <34148F08 DOT 7A16 AT pacbell DOT net> <5v5fm1$iku$1 AT vixen DOT cso DOT uiuc DOT edu> <3417b361 DOT 0 AT 139 DOT 134 DOT 5 DOT 33> <341baf04 DOT 0 AT 139 DOT 134 DOT 5 DOT 33> <341ceb68 DOT 0 AT 139 DOT 134 DOT 5 DOT 33> NNTP-Posting-Host: ntbackup2.krisalis.co.uk To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk Herman Schoenfeld wrote in article <341ceb68 DOT 0 AT 139 DOT 134 DOT 5 DOT 33>... > >> Development under MSVC++ is prefered for many reasons. > >> > >> It's stable. It works fine with NT. It's okay at building code. It > >> catches errors. However, most final releases would (and should) be Watcom or > >> DJGPP. > >> > >> ie, take a look at Fury 3 and Terminal Velocity. They are both the same > >> game, exactly the same engine, same enemies etc except Fury 3 is > >> Win95/NT MSVC++ game while terminal velocity is DOS Watcom. OK, I'll bite, how do you know it's not Watcom's windows code? And how is a DOS 3d engine supposed to work in Windows? The games may look the same, and may even share some code, but that doesn't mean they're doing the same amount of work. > >> I get a higher frame rate on terminal velocity on my 486 DX2/66 8meg > >> 1meg Trident card than on a P133 16meg 2meg 2meg S3 card. So? Apples and oranges. You can't compare what they're doing. BTW - 16 mb is nowhere near enough to run windows properly, so it's hardly a fair test to start. If you'd used 16mb/dos and 32mb/windows, then I'd say you'd find a big improvement. > >Hooo, com'on Herman! It's been said here and elsewhere that > >djgpp just isn't good at optimizing. Don't get all blinded by > >MS-Hate, ok? VC++ has been proven many times to outperform or be > >on par with Watcom, and djgpp has never been near, especially > >with Pentium optimizations. In fact, gcc is trailing on other > >platforms also. BTW: the real geniuses of compiler optimization > >work for money, and at places like Inter, Watcom, MS, IBM, > >borland, ect.., not in their basements (though they certainly > >have stared there). > > As far as I my tests are concerned DJGPP has outperformed watcom in many > places, and has beaten that MSVC thing to a pulp. My guess is that you've never > used DJGPP or you aren't fully aware of its fine-tuning capabilities. Fine tuning? What, writing all of the inner loops in (AT&T) Pentium assembler? > Firstly, merely the fact that Fury 3 (MSVC++) on a PCI Pentium 133 16ram > 2vram S3 is almost 1/3 slower than Terminal Velocity (Watcom) on a VLB > 486 DX2/66 8ram 1vram says alot about the compilers capabilities. No, it says absoultely nothing about the compiler. Again, how do you know Fury3 is VC++? > And secondly name on decent game that is MSVC thats. I doubt you'll find one. Monkey Island 3? Tomb Raider 2? Quake 2/QuakeWorld/GLQuake/WinQuake? Most Win95 games are built with MSVC. I know id are using VC5 for all their current projects. > DJGPP and Watcom are equally good even if DJGPP offers greater compatibility > and portability, MSVC on the other hand is strictly single OS making it > primitive for large scale production. Wrong. VC5 is on Intel x86 and DEC Alpha chipsets, that I know of. WinNT runs on x86, Alpha, MIPS (and Solaris?) and the Win32 API is portable between them. Apparently, id have Quake running on a quad Alpha, with about a day's code changes... > There are other good OS's other than > windows you know. With (about) 10% market share. MacOS has 7%, so that leaves 3% for all the others. --- Russ