bc++ 5.0 <-> watcom 11.0 
Author Message
 bc++ 5.0 <-> watcom 11.0

I'm debating between buying one of these compilers. They are both
expensive so I want to know what I'm getting into.

I've used Borland compilers for over 10 years, so I have a pretty good
idea what they are capable of. I recently read over the specifications
for both and I like them, but there are still unanswered questions.

First, I see that Watcom supports DOS and DOS-32 and includes DOS/4GW,
which is nice to have I think. I know Borland includes DPMI with some
versions, but I didn't see anything about that for 5.0. I could care
less about the Windows parts of it, I am just interested in the DOS
platform for various reasons.

I also heard that in order to compile Watcom it takes 4-5 steps,
whereas with Borland is only takes 2. Is this true?

Does anybody know if BC=+ 5.0+ includes DPMI or equivalent?

If one was only $100 or so, I'd buy it, but since Watcom is around
$300 and I know Borland is at least $200, I want to get as many facts
down as I can before I decide.

Please reply via email if you can help me.

One more thing...in the past I've had people tell me to try DJGPP. I
have absolutely no interest in DJGPP. I don't care if its free.

Thank you.



Thu, 04 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 bc++ 5.0 <-> watcom 11.0
Watcom's good.  I've used it in the past.

Borland 5.0 has some serious problems.  If you want to use it, do you
have 128meg RAM?  Lot's of hard drive space?  Do you like to reboot
several times a day?  Do you enjoy cursing?

Borland 3.1 was nice.  It's a shame that it's not available anymore.

Jack Dingler

Quote:

> I'm debating between buying one of these compilers. They are both
> expensive so I want to know what I'm getting into.

> I've used Borland compilers for over 10 years, so I have a pretty good
> idea what they are capable of. I recently read over the specifications
> for both and I like them, but there are still unanswered questions.

> First, I see that Watcom supports DOS and DOS-32 and includes DOS/4GW,
> which is nice to have I think. I know Borland includes DPMI with some
> versions, but I didn't see anything about that for 5.0. I could care
> less about the Windows parts of it, I am just interested in the DOS
> platform for various reasons.

> I also heard that in order to compile Watcom it takes 4-5 steps,
> whereas with Borland is only takes 2. Is this true?

> Does anybody know if BC=+ 5.0+ includes DPMI or equivalent?

> If one was only $100 or so, I'd buy it, but since Watcom is around
> $300 and I know Borland is at least $200, I want to get as many facts
> down as I can before I decide.

> Please reply via email if you can help me.

> One more thing...in the past I've had people tell me to try DJGPP. I
> have absolutely no interest in DJGPP. I don't care if its free.

> Thank you.



Tue, 09 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 bc++ 5.0 <-> watcom 11.0
Well, for 32 bit DOS programming, if you want quality your only good
choices are Watcom and DJGPP.  Watcom is great, but costs a lot.
DJGPP is great, and is free.  I have Borland C++ 5 (Standard) and you
need the "Borland PowerPack" to write 32 bit apps.  I don't know if
thats true if you get the professional edition, however.  BC5 does, I
know, have a lot of really bad bugs (like crashing all the time).  

Why, BTW, do you not like DJGPP?  Have you ever tried it?  It was good
enough for id Software's Quake, after all, so speed and code quality
isn't a problem, plus it allows you to port to various other platforms
(basically everything) quite easily.

Mike Thacker

Quote:
>> One more thing...in the past I've had people tell me to try DJGPP. I
>> have absolutely no interest in DJGPP. I don't care if its free.



Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 bc++ 5.0 <-> watcom 11.0

 > > I also heard that in order to compile Watcom it takes 4-5 steps,
 > > whereas with Borland is only takes 2. Is this true?
 >
 > uhhh...that depends, maybe if you use Watcom's crappy ide, I use
 > dos edit and the command line compiler (running in two windows
 > under win95).  So it takes me; Save, wcl386 [associated files], run.
 > three steps :)

Well, the watcom ide is the best ide for windows I know.  (I only know
borland, watcom and a very little vc++). I don't know about the dos
version, but I think its also not that bad. It takes me two steps: click
on the button of the editor that switches to the ide, then click on the
make button. Ok, if you count save, it's also three.
And dos edit does not have many features. Where is syntax hilighting and
all that things?

 > Borland would take the same number but it's type and go, if you count
 > clicking on the Yes/No dialogs and/or you disable confirm dialogs,
your
 > mileage may vary.

What I hate about the borland ide is, that it's all one big program. I
like to have separate programs as editor, ide, de{*filter*} and so on. The
watcom editor also loads much faster if I want to view a C file than the
complete borland ide.
One thing I really miss in the watcom editor is that it does not have a
print function.

 > Besides that, gcc is MUCH MUCH friendlier than borland or Watcom ever
will be!
 > (well except for that whole de{*filter*} thing, but real men debug with
 > lint, ed, and a good set of man pages...oh and maybe a hex dump
reader :)

Well, if you like unix programming, why don't you like the watcom
editor? It's a dos / windows version of the famous vi. (The windows
version has to be switched to vi mode)

--

   please remove X to respond via email



Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 bc++ 5.0 <-> watcom 11.0

 > Why, BTW, do you not like DJGPP?  Have you ever tried it?  It was
good
 > enough for id Software's Quake, after all, so speed and code quality
 > isn't a problem, plus it allows you to port to various other
platforms
 > (basically everything) quite easily.

I know, it's off topic, but I thought Quake was written in Watcom C
using its dos extender DOS4GW.

--

   please remove X to respond via email



Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 bc++ 5.0 <-> watcom 11.0
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:35:29 -0700, "Rolf A. Magnus"

*Sorry for being off-topic, but I'm responding here, folks. Don't beat
me*

Nope.  DOOM was written with Watcom using DOS4GW, but Quake was
actually written with DJGPP.  By Quake, I mean the DOS version of
Quake, of course.  Unix ports were written with GCC, and the Win32
version (which came out MUCH later) was written in MSVC4.2.  

There are a number of ways you can see that the original DOS Quake was
written in DJGPP.  For one, it ships with CWSDPMI.EXE.  Second,
www.delorie.com lists it as one of the professional programs that's
been released that used DJGPP.  If you can crash it, you see the DJGPP
style crash-output.  In some versions, actually,  you can even see the
djasm stub copyright at the beginning of the .EXE.

Mike Thacker

Quote:
>I know, it's off topic, but I thought Quake was written in Watcom C
>using its dos extender DOS4GW.



Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 bc++ 5.0 <-> watcom 11.0

Quote:
>Well, the watcom ide is the best ide for windows I know.  (I only know
>borland, watcom and a very little vc++).

Better be careful, I'm pretty sure editor preference was the initial
cause of the crusades:) But seriously, folks, the editor diffs are
completely subjective.  Dev Studio takes tons of screen real-estate,
but actually gives you something in return (lots of useful
information, source browser, class browser, etc) and has the best
macro/scripting capabilities of the bunch (VBScript integrated. Work's
pretty darned well, actually.  And you can write plug-in .DLL's also).
MSVC is the most customizable.

I've used the Borland IDE's extensively, and while I think the
'Borland Style' was the pinnacle of DOS IDE's (RHIDE is great, and its
an almost exact clone of the 'BC' IDE from Borland C++ 3.1), it didn't
translate all that well to windows, unfortunately.  Didn't even really
look like a Windows program a lot of the time.

Watcom's IDE I have only used a VERY little, several years ago.  And
as such I can't comment much on its quality.  However I can say that
if its (...gulp...) based on VI it is probably less that steller.
Now: before you start throwing stones about how vi is the greatest
thing since sliced bread (Wait, I think bread-slicers and VI were
invented the same year... some time back in the bronze age) you must
realize that VI does NOT translate well at ALL to a windowed
interface.  You can do it, but it won't exactly take advantage of the
windowing, unfortunately.

Please, VI lovers, go ahead an stick up for your editor of choice in
the groups, NOT by my e-mail... I wouldn't want to have to filter out
everything with 'vi' in its subject header.  And yes, I do know how to
use VI and I _do_ use it.  If emacs isn't available.

Mike Thacker



Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 bc++ 5.0 <-> watcom 11.0

Quote:
>Well, the watcom ide is the best ide for windows I know.  (I only know
>borland, watcom and a very little vc++).

Better be careful, I'm pretty sure editor preference was the initial
cause of the crusades:) But seriously, folks, the editor diffs are
completely subjective.  Dev Studio takes tons of screen real-estate,
but actually gives you something in return (lots of useful
information, source browser, class browser, etc) and has the best
macro/scripting capabilities of the bunch (VBScript integrated. Work's
pretty darned well, actually.  And you can write plug-in .DLL's also).
MSVC is the most customizable.

I've used the Borland IDE's extensively, and while I think the
'Borland Style' was the pinnacle of DOS IDE's (RHIDE is great, and its
an almost exact clone of the 'BC' IDE from Borland C++ 3.1), it didn't
translate all that well to windows, unfortunately.  Didn't even really
look like a Windows program a lot of the time.

Watcom's IDE I have only used a VERY little, several years ago.  And
as such I can't comment much on its quality.  However I can say that
if its (...gulp...) based on VI it is probably less that steller.
Now: before you start throwing stones about how vi is the greatest
thing since sliced bread (Wait, I think bread-slicers and VI were
invented the same year... some time back in the bronze age) you must
realize that VI does NOT translate well at ALL to a windowed
interface.  You can do it, but it won't exactly take advantage of the
windowing, unfortunately.

Please, VI lovers, go ahead an stick up for your editor of choice in
the groups, NOT by my e-mail... I wouldn't want to have to filter out
everything with 'vi' in its subject header.  And yes, I do know how to
use VI and I _do_ use it.  If emacs isn't available.

Mike Thacker



Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 bc++ 5.0 <-> watcom 11.0

 > Watcom's IDE I have only used a VERY little, several years ago.  And
 > as such I can't comment much on its quality.  However I can say that
 > if its (...gulp...) based on VI it is probably less that steller.

It's *not* the ide that is based on vi, only the source editor. And the
windows version is much different from vi in normal mode. You have to
switch vi mode on somewhere in the options menu to make it vi-like. If
this is off, you have a windows based source editor.

 > Now: before you start throwing stones about how vi is the greatest
 > thing since sliced bread (Wait, I think bread-slicers and VI were
 > invented the same year... some time back in the bronze age) you must
 > realize that VI does NOT translate well at ALL to a windowed
 > interface.  You can do it, but it won't exactly take advantage of the
 > windowing, unfortunately.

Well, as I said, you can switch between taking "advantage of the
windowing" and being the "bronze age" vi style.

 > And yes, I do know how to
 > use VI and I _do_ use it.  If emacs isn't available.

So you like emacs and windows editors, but not vi? Strange combination.

--

   please remove X to respond via email



Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 10 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. <<<<<<<Parsing help, please>>>>>>>>

2. <<Borland C/C++ 5.0 Problem >>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

3. File Format conversion, ascii freeform -->.csv <-->.wk1<-->dbf<-->?HELP

4. <<<>>>Need C code advice with functions and sorting.<<<>>>

5. <><><>HELP<><><> PCMCIA Motorola Montana 33.6

6. Creating a stub with Watcom C/C++ 11.0

7. Help getting Watcom 11.0 floating point emulation working in non-DOS environment

8. Watcom 11.0

9. Info on Watcom c/c++ 11.0

10. >>>Windows Service<<<

11. BC 3.0 <dos.h>,<io.h> problems

12. BC 4 and Watcom

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software