From: "Russ Williams" <russ AT algorithm DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
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: 16 Sep 1997 10:25:55 GMT
Organization: UUNet UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet UK)
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <01bcc28b$0dd4e4f0$2b40cbc2@russnt>
References: <3412BD25 DOT 1F30 AT mho DOT net> <5uuqci$15l AT sjx-ixn5 DOT ix DOT netcom DOT com> <34131883 DOT 29A3 AT mho DOT net> <341714E9 DOT F6CC2E67 AT rpi DOT edu> <34184FB9 DOT 441D AT cam DOT org> <34185990 DOT 3DFA AT sensor DOT com> <34189915 DOT 79BB AT cam DOT org> <5vhpcs$sd$1 AT news DOT internetsat DOT com> <341cec0c DOT 0 AT 139 DOT 134 DOT 5 DOT 33> <01bcc1b3$ccb39840$2b40cbc2 AT russnt> <341e2691 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 <you AT somehost DOT somedomain> wrote in article
<341e2691 DOT 0 AT 139 DOT 134 DOT 5 DOT 33>...
> In article <01bcc1b3$ccb39840$2b40cbc2 AT russnt>,
russ AT algorithm DOT demon DOT co DOT uk 
[...]
> >The code it produces being worse than anything else? DJGPP doesn't 
> >support Pentium optimising, yet VC5 supports the PPro (Watcom and 
> >Borland probably do too). It isn't in the same league as commercial 
> >compilers. GCC doesn't even support C++ as well as everything else - 
> >templates are a good way to see 'internal compiler error', and I've 
> >personally had it fuck up on function calling  (pushing the wrong 
> >parameters, ignoring return values). GCC is great for doing C programs, 
> >and allows code to be remarkably portable, but it isn't the best.
> 
> DJGPP isn't that bad. GCC on unix/linux is standard. There are no MSVC 
> compilers for them so any comment comparing GCC to MSVC is pretty 
> much a waste of bandwidth. 

Is the x86 code for Linux apps different to x86 code for Windows, then? 
MSVC could (with a little difficulty) be used to code for any Intel
platform.

> If you're comparinh MSVC with DJGPP, you're wrong in all instances.

Sorry, not today.

> DJGPP does support c++. 

Yes, but DOES IT WORK? I know DJGPP claims to support C++ 
(.cc files), but for anything but the simplest code, I certainly wouldn't 
trust it.

> DJGPP does support pentium optimising. (PGCC).

i) PGCC != DJGPP.
ii) Pentium MMX? PPro? Pentium 2?

> DJGPP produces fast optimized code.

Compared to Turbo C++, yes. Compared to a real compiler, no.

> Sure, DJGPP doesn't have nice little point-and-click features but most
people 
> don't need them.

Gee, I'm such a bad coder that I like source-level debugging and a single
key/icon to build the project. Just because DJGPP isn't easy to use, 
doesn't mean it's the best.
 
> >GCC is a very nice, capable, free compiler, but FFS, the best people in 
> >compiler optimisation earn lots of money working for MS, Intel, Borland,
> >Watcom, Symantec, SGI, Sun, DEC, HP etc. They don't work for free.
> 
> With flawed logic like that its no wonder you have such trouble with 
> programming. 

I have trouble programming? Since when? Why hasn't someone told me
about this? (Hrmph. Heads will roll...)

> Just because somebody charges $250 p/hour to produce a compiler 
> like Turbo C++ it certainatly doesn't make it better than something 
> produced by hundreds of people who already make enough money 
> and contribute to a compiler such as DJGPP. 

No, but Watcom 11, Borland 5, MSVC 5 are all better than DJGPP.
Not in terms of gcc-induced portability (portable code isn't something
gcc invented, BTW), but in terms of code generation, debugging, IDE,
online help, support.
 
> You can put all your compilers together and you won't get even half the
support 
> DJGPP has.

'Support' doesn't mean the compiler is any good. DJGPP and GCC in 
general are very standard, but are not the best. The binary-only 
compilers that are available on most systems are usually better. Just
because the PC doesn't have a compiler shipped with the OS doesn't
alter the fact that GCC isn't up to commercial standards.

BTW - Most of the support I've seen for DJGPP involves "don't worry,
that's fixed in 2.8.0". If any commercial compiler manufacturers find 
a critical bug, they'll patch it within days - their livelihood depends on
it. That's a damn sight bigger incentive than anything DJGPP/GCC
can come up with.

---
Russ