On  in a message to Ed Blackman, Jim Archer wrote:

EB> JA> Jack of all trades, master of none...
[...]
EB> In fact, Watcom is an excellent optimizing compiler, in most
EB> respects comparable if not superior to EMX/GCC, CSet++, and Borland
EB> C/C++ for OS/2.

JA> Well, OS/2 has room for improvement, but I find that OS/2
JA> supports many things better than Watcom. When I used Watcom, I
JA> could not get the debugger to work well under OS/2. I also
JA> found it to be slow.

I haven't had any problems with the debugger, but then I don't use it
much.  I run Lint against my source before I compile, which catches my
most common mistakes.  The rest I find by running the program in the
debugger just once, to find the exact line that the error occurred at,
which usually gives me enough of a hint about the nature of the problem
that I don't have to spend much more time in the debugger.

JA> The environment was mediocer at best.

I'm a "command line and makefile" kinda guy, so I only use the
environment to do the grunt work of generating a makefile, which I then
customize to my requirements.  Watcom could strip everything out of the
IDE but the ability to build a project and generate makefiles from a
project, and I'd never notice.

JA> I was hoping for a debugger the quality of IPMD, and an
JA> environment compreable to Borland's, but the debugger was not
JA> great, even if it worked, and the environment was little
JA> better than workframe.

JA> As to code generation, I do not take issue with Watcomon this.
JA> C/Set++ makes nice code, and I expect Watcom is comperable,
JA> and both are better than Borland. My programs, by and large,
JA> spend lots of time sleeping.
[...]

Code generation was specifically the issue I was speaking to.  When
someone says "the XYZ compiler" I assume that they're talking about the
actual compiler, and perhaps the linker.  I don't think about the things
that come bundled with the compiler, like the debugger or IDE.  So when
you said that the Watcom compiler was a "jack of all trades, master of
none" I took issue with that statement.  If you had said that you
weren't satisfied with the support tools that came with the compiler, I
probably wouldn't have replied.

JA> I don't dispute the Watcom 10 compiler had some nice
JA> advantages, but I didn't see that they were enough for me to
JA> keep it. I really don't want to start or parcitipate in a
JA> compier war, something I should have thought about before my
JA> last post. Lets just agree that no compiler is best for
JA> everyone, and agree that reasonable people can disagree.

Certainly.  Different people have different requirements and working
styles.  Watcom has strengths in areas that are important to me, and
weaknesses in areas I don't care much about, so I think it's a great
compiler.  For you the situation is just the opposite: Watcom's
weaknesses are in areas that are important to you, and its strengths are
in areas that you don't care much about, so you don't think it's very
great.


Ed Blackman

... Excuse me, President Clinton, that's not my pain you're feeling!
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.12 OS/2 [NR]