> Suggestions please...

 PS> I have only used VAC++ 3.0 as OS/2 compilers is 
 PS> concerned, and I am not very 

I tried the version on DevCon 10 (haven't bothered since I got 11).  My two
bits on it:

 PS> problems with it. It has 
 PS> a greit debugger, a very good syntax highlighting editor, and it produces 

Debugging is important.  Editor is a nice-to-have, but really... there are
many highlighting editors out there.  I'm quite used to fte, for example.

 PS> you want to use it, there is a Visual Builder where you 
 PS> can make your PM-apps 
 PS> like something Visual Basic like, only more advanced. 
 PS> But this will generate 
 PS> huge and slow runtimes, I don't plan to use it. And there is a very good 

Have you tried?  I'm sure that much of Merlin was written either with VAC++
and Java.  And, since the Java virtual machine wouldn't have been
installed, the installation should have been written in VAC++...

I tried the Visual Builder.  It looked nice, but was _completely_ unusable
(as in SLOW) on my machine.

 PS> to know, but as far as I know, it's very powerful. The 
 PS> only problem is that is 
 PS> requires a lot of money, diskapace and RAM. There is a 
 PS> 4.0 I think, anyway the 
 PS> 3.0 requiers 200 megs if diskspace for a full 
 PS> installation, and at LEAST 16 
 PS> megs of RAM for C++ development. If you want to use the 

Watcom requires about 200-300 meg for a "full" (single-platform)
install.  It requires 350ish for a _full_ (all platform) install.

 PS> VB, you should get 32 
 PS> (IBM says 24). I have 48 megs, and I don't do any heavy 
 PS> stuff, but it flys... 

I have 64 meg, and it's useless.  Note: my conclusion is that while RAM
helps, so does CPU.  I only have a 486/66.  I'm guessing you have at least
a P90, if not a P120 or better.

 PS> Had 16 before, it was a bit slow but usable. I think I 
 PS> read in some newsgroup 
 PS> that 4.0 would require 300 Megs of RAM.

300 megs of RAM?  I doubt it.  300 megs of HD space, perhaps...

 PS> VAC++ is also a good cross-platform compiler, if you 
 PS> use the class-libs (which 
 PS> of course is slower and bigger than using APIs). There 
 PS> is version avaliable 
 PS> for OS/2, Windows (3.x or 95?? I don't know). And I 

Yes.  (Both.)  However, the Windows 3.x class-libs only support a subset of
the WinNT/OS2/AIX/etc class-libs (i.e., no multithreading, no semaphores,
or any other item that can only be handled in a _real_ OS).

 PS> Conclusion: As far as I'm concerned, VAC++ is THE 
 PS> choice. But note again that 
 PS> I haven't used any other OS/2 compiler, but I am PERFECTLY satisfied with 
 PS> VAC++.

When I manage to get a Pentium (or P-Pro), I'll get VAC++.  In the
meantime, I have to stick to Watcom and EMX.


--- Maximus/2 3.01