LR> You mean your personally owned consulting co. or the company
LR> you are an employee of...

Mine is an independentant consulting firm which specializes in custom
scientific and engineering software and crypto applications. These are
vertical, one-of-a-kind projects for large corporate and government
entities.  I have no hesitation in refusing DOS- or Windows-based requests.
 My reputation among those who count is excellent, and if a customer wants
my work, and if I choose to do it, it is on my terms.

LR> Why did you feel *compelled* to go to native OS/2 apps
LR> ... if they [as DOS apps] ran well under OS/2's VDM?

I don't like the word "compel" when applied to me, but in this
case it almost fits.  The prime reason is memory.  Some data sets for
certain of my simulations require 100MB or more of memory; doing this with
DOS is a real PITA.  With OS/2, 'tis a joy in comparison. A multi-threaded
OS/2 app crunching lots of numbers makes DOS/WIN look like horse-and-buggy
(no pun intended) technology.

LR> ... I am one of those who heard, years ago, how HOT UNIX, and/or,
LR> it's brethen would be big time when DOS users could run their
LR> DOS apps under UNIX-like operating systems.

Running DOS-based apps under UNIX is about as inane as doing so under OS/2
or NT.  It might work, but you're still stuck with all of DOS's
limitations.  BTW, by using C/C++ I am able to develop for OS/2 on Intel
boxes and have been able to expand to UNIX on workstations.

LR>ES> ... I was convinced that there will *never* be a Pascal
LR>ES> compiler for OS/2 from Borland.
LR> ... whatever did Zak say to you in mid 1993 that convinced you
LR> so thoroughly that you decided to move to C++ for OS/2?

I think it was mostly his condescending attitude.  He sounded like the
clown in the White House, telling me to trust Borland (and by extension,
Microsoft) - *they* knew what was good for me, and I didn't.  Factually, he
stated that Borland was working on a 32-bit Pascal compiler that would
target Windows (including NT, Chicago, and Cairo), although he would give
no details.  He further said that Borland would continue to
"watch" the OS/2 market for Pascal.  The tone of his voice was
enough to tell me what I wanted to know.

LR> Are you saying you converted all your existing DOS based apps to
LR> C++ and OS/2 in one fell swoop?  Gulp.

Gulp, indeed.  No, I still support old DOS stuff.  As new revisions are
done, however, they are written from the ground up for OS/2. Good
programming practices in the old stuff means that this is not as daunting a
task as it might seem, and with experience, it has become almost a routine
exercise.

LR> In case you hadn't noticed, I am not a big fan of C++ or OOPS.
LR> ... I have a track record of picking up new comilers real quick
LR> ... but C++ is not as trival for me.  I wish it were.

One option you might consider is PL/I.  Although I know little about it, I
understand that it is very Pascal-like, but more elegant.  I received a
demo kit from IBM (which runs on OS/2), and though I haven't had much time
to investigate it, it looks good so far.  I think this will be my next
personal education project.

I think that sooner or later you will have to bite the bullet and change
languages.  The sooner you start, the sooner you can become productive. 
The first language I learned, not considering binary machine instructions,
was ALGOL - don't see *that* around much any more - and I remember using
punched paper tape and patchcords.  I see Pascal travelling toward the same
obscurity, and that's not where I intend to be.

LR> I hear all the C++ compilers are slow and memory hogs in both
LR> compilation and execution states.

WATCOM and IBM compilers are very happy in developing with 16MB RAM, and I
have heard of success with 8.  (My least-capable machine has 32.)  Compile
time is not fast, compared to Borland, but this is of no consequence.  With
OS/2, one can do other stuff, or take the needed coffee break.  I find that
these compilers produce very good optimized executables - approaching that
of hand-optimized ASM.

LR> What do you see for the OS/2 market in comparison for Windows
LR> and NT for the next year or more?

For the shrink-wrap crowd, there will always be DOS and Windows; not
knowing any better, these folks will continue to be satisfied with the
mediocrity engendered by Microsoft.  However, as OS/2 gains acceptance,
more quality software written for it will appear.  I rather doubt that it
will gain the dominance enjoyed by the Redmond bunch - I don't care, and
many share my opinion.  Whenever I need software, and it is not
commercially available or of poor quality, I write it myself.  For OS/2.
___
 * MR/2 * Clinton:  A 200-dollar haircut on a 29-cent head.

--- InterPCB 1.50