DM> Interesting... I moved away from Watcom (10.6) to EMX 
DM> specifically for C++ support.

 DN> But the C++ grammar supported by EMX is archaic, especially compared to
 DN> Watcom.

Which version of Watcom?  I found what I needed was generally better
supported by EMX than Watcom.  Granted, I was using Watcom 10.6 (backlevel
by one step) vs EMX 0.9c (the latest at the time)...

DM> I don't use namespaces nor exceptions, but I *do* use the STL.

 DN> STL is mostly coded for use with "lowest common 
 DN> denominator" compilers. All
 DN> it needs is template support and you are away. Besides, I can code my own
 DN> sort routines in C++. ... :-)

STL *was* coded that way.  Each compiler is supposed to ship their own
version that conforms to the standard as closely as their compiler
supports.  Up until "recently" (I'll leave the interpretation of
this term open to debate), that meant that most compilers didn't support
templated methods inside classes, or default template arguments.  EMX 0.9d
finally came out with this.  Visual Age 3.0 is sadly lacking this...
unfortunately, I'm stuck with this version, just as I'm stuck on Java
1.1.6...

 DN> The makefile format doesn't bother me, as long as the compiler's make
 DN> utility works with it. I seldom even read the makefiles.

I seldom have any choice but to use makefiles.  Gotta check in my code,
including makefiles, and get it compiled elsewhere.  Much easier to
guarantee with manually-created makefiles over automatically generated
ones...

 DN> product. In all my years in software the only two 
 DN> system software companies I
 DN> have found with decent technical support have been IBM and Honeywell.

Heheh... and I've heard such nasty rumours about IBM tech support - right
up there with MS tech support.  :-)

DM> Since that move, I've switched a large part of my OS/2 work to Visual
DM> Age.   Why?

 DN> Because you work for IBM and get the compiler for free.

That too.  I'm not sure about other compilers being supported as easily
with JNI, for example...

 DN> Only the more esoteric API's are omitted from the EMX package, AFAIK. It
 DN> should work fine provided you stick to OS/2 2.0 API 
 DN> calls, which accounts for the bulk of the current API.

Unfortunately, I didn't stick to that API set.  :-)

DM> Also, when writing JNI,  I'm not sure if
DM> javah will create the right headers for  EMX...

 DN> I thought javah was supposed to produce ISO/ANSI standard C source.

Right.  However, the jni_md.h file is optimised for VAC++ ... Watcom may
support looking like VAC, but EMX isn't likely to...


---