Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:13:11 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Andrew Jones <luminous-is AT home DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: <Damian Y> Re: It's back, but the ...
In-Reply-To: <ZrYq4.53296$45.2819027@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000220111230.25009S-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Andrew Jones wrote:

> > Some people, like Shawn Hargreaves, have an exactly opposite view.
> > YMMV.
> 
> An opinion.

An opinion based on some serious experience: Shawn ported his Allegro
library to Watcom.

> See one of the other posts (about DJGPP's nearptr) for an argument
> in Watcom's defense.

What defense?  The use of the nearptr hack by default in Watcom's
environment does explain why it might be a less stable system, but how
does this ``defend'' Watcom?