Message-ID: <37C2A3BD.36668FD6@montana.com> From: bowman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: fall of rsxntdj?? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 30 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:53:01 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.4.224.54 X-Trace: newsfeed.slurp.net 935502526 208.4.224.54 (Tue, 24 Aug 1999 08:48:46 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 08:48:46 CDT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > That would probably not work well, due to all kind of nice features > offered by DJGPP that break when you invoke DJGPP tools from a non-DJGPP > program. What did you have in mind? There are many styles and possibilities, but when working in Windows, I typically use bash, make, grep, and so forth during the development process, but I don't invoke any djgpp code from the Windows app. The Windows culture evolved from the VC++ or Borland compilers, neither of which never offered much of a toolset, discounting the IDE wizards. > IMHO, currently Cygwin tools have too many subtle bugs. Thought it was just me and inavertant mixing and matching. > This is one of the incompatibilities I mentioned above. It alone would > preclude you from building any GNU package. I think that is a different area. Cygwin is filling the gnu->windows niche. The people looking for a solid and free C or C++ compiler that can generate windows apps may have very little knowledge/interest in the bulk of GNU. Given an editor like PFE, the 'tools' may well stop at make. For that level of interaction, the djgpp kit works well. -- Bear Technology Making Montana safe for Grizzlies http://people.montana.com/~bowman/