Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 13:59:16 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <1659-Sat07Oct2000135915+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5h
In-reply-to: <0susts4200tf163qmp119k2opvh1v8eovo@4ax.com> (message from Damian
	Yerrick on Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:31:23 GMT)
Subject: Re: DJGPP Version1
References: <8rip5t$o1j$1 AT nntp DOT itservices DOT ubc DOT ca> <0susts4200tf163qmp119k2opvh1v8eovo AT 4ax DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: Damian Yerrick <Bullcr_pd_yerrick AT hotmail DOT comRemoveBullcr_p>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:31:23 GMT
> 
> >Is it safe to use DJGPP v1?
> 
> v1 was a horrible hack.

Please don't call ``a horrible hack'' software written by others,
unless you know for a fact that it was ``horrible'' and ``a hack'',
and can substantiate these assertions by a list of places that used
unclean code and dirty tricks.

As a matter of fact, DJGPP v1.x was no more ``a horrible hack'' than
any other development system which used a DOS extender, including
Borland's v3.x, Watcom's DOS-based compilers, etc.  Most of the
features of v1.x are present in today's DJGPP, if in somewhat modified
form.  (For example, CWSDPMI is based on the go32 extender written for
v1.x.)