Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19970916125741.00e1d9d0@modempool.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:57:41 -0400
To: "Russ Williams" <russ AT algorithm DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From: bpmann AT modempool DOT com (Brian Mann)
Subject: Re: The numer 1 compiler, DJGPP or MSVC  Here's a good rating
  comparision
In-Reply-To: <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

Yeah, whatever, if you dislike DJGPP so much, get the hell out of the
newsgroup.Jeez.

Brian

At 10:25 AM 9/16/97 GMT, Russ Williams wrote:
>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
>