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: 17 Sep 1997 11:26:55 GMT
Organization: UUNet UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet UK)
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <01bcc35c$bf708080$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> <adtEGMnHy DOT Atw AT netcom DOT com> <341f8541 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
<341f8541 DOT 0 AT 139 DOT 134 DOT 5 DOT 33>...
> >: DJGPP isn't that bad. GCC on unix/linux is standard ...
> >
> >Misleading regarding linux. "Standard" doesn't mean much when there is
no 
> >competition.
> 
> Then its standard fool.

So? When there's only one choice, 'standard' means about as much as 
'default', 'prefered' or 'developer's choice'. That is to say, fuck all. If
any
of the main PC compilers were available for Linux, would people use gcc?
 
> >: ... There are no MSVC 
> >: compilers for them so any comment comparing GCC to MSVC is pretty 
> >: much a waste of bandwidth. 
> >
> >Wrong. Some of us can read assembly language files generated by 
> >compilers. Some of us can link modules from "foreign" compilers that 
> >don't natively target a particular environment.
> 
> No, it's not "wrong". MSVC doesn't support linux. Why must you fill this 
> newgroup with your lies?

Just because the spec sheets don't say that something is possible doesn't
necesserily make it impossible. (E)COFF is a portable object format, and 
from a quick look at some VC5 object files, they look to be COFF objects.
This happens to be the same format as gcc so, in theory, the compilers
and linkers can be interchanged - and code can be compiled under 
windows and linked under Linux.

> >: If you're comparinh MSVC with DJGPP, you're wrong in all instances.
> >: DJGPP does support c++. 
> >
> >Misleading. Gcc has frequent "internal compiler errors" when compiling 
> >code beyond the most trivial use of C++.
> 
> That's because people often fail the simplest of logic and don't install
it 
> correctly. 

Do you have any idea how many professional programmers you're calling
idiots?

> >: DJGPP does support pentium optimising. (PGCC).
> >
> >Misleading. The patched compiler sometimes (not often) produces code
that
> >is slower than the original 486 optimizer's code.
> 
> Wait 6months-1year and DJGPP will fully support pentium optimizations
along 
> with a myriad of other features making it ideal choice for game
programmers.
> (ie, full support for windows, full support for directx (if not already))

The Pentium will be dead in a year. FFS, the entry level is a P166-P200,
and
they only go up to a 233! By the time DJGPP supports the Pentium, most
professionals will be targetting Pentium-2s, with Pentium compatability as
a
side-issue.
 
> >: DJGPP produces fast optimized code.
> >
> >Misleading, fast compared to what? Not the current versions of the
> >commercial compilers. 
> 
> Compared to watcom, compared to VC4.

VC4 isn't current, and even so, it beats DJGPP. Just saying DJGPP
is faster doesn't make the code it produces any better.

> >Gcc/djgpp has a great price. Source code is fun and/or educational. 
> >Source code portability to nearly any console environment is great for
> >some projects. However, code optimization is a weak point for some
target
> >architectures, this includes Intel Pentium. Many professional game
> >developers reevaluate compilers at the start of a project, include gcc
> >among their tests, and most seem to choose something else for their
Intel
> >x86 targets today. 
> 
> The GCC compilers are ideal for all platforms including DOS/Win95/NT.

Unless you actually want to do some work with your compiler...

---
Russ