DM> Be fair, Paul - what was lacking?

 PS> Several important functions (I forget which ones, 
 PS> sorry...it was a long time ago that I tried it), an 
 PS> IDE, OS/2 API reference (this is EMX I'm talking 
 PS> about), possibly a debugger but I never looked for one.

IDE: it seems to me that there is a freeware IDE available for EMX.  Sure,
it isn't part of the base package, but for the price, it can't be beat. 
:-)  However, EMX was made to model the unix environment, and for that you
use makefiles.  Much easier on memory and diskspace that way.  And faster. 
:-}

OS/2 API reference: as a unix compiler, this doesn't surprise me.  Besides,
I believe that generally you require a licence to do this, and, well, they
don't have a licence to redistribute such stuff.  Again, _unix_.  :-)

Debugger: gdb comes with EMX.  Not the best debugger in the world, but... it exists.

 PS> Admittedly it doesn't lack too much but what it does 
 PS> lack made it unsuitable for _my_ needs.  I believe a 

Which is fair, and wasn't quite what I got out of your original message.

 PS> lot of people feel this way otherwise GCC/EMX would be 
 PS> more widely used, and retail compiler sales wouldn't be 
 PS> booming.

It is no more applicable to certain jobs than other compilers might be. 
For OO-based PM programming, Watcom is miserable.  But for _fast_ and
_tight_ executables, VAC++ is not as good as Watcom!  IMO, use the tool
that is appropriate to the job.  EMX is great for the el-cheapo who wants
to taste native OS/2 programming without shelling out the big bucks.  It's
great for porting unix programs.  But for other jobs it isn't as good...
just use the tool required.


--- Maximus/2 3.01