-> 02 Jun 96 07:49, Lawrence Sayre wrote to All:

 LS> I'd like to hear comments from people experienced with the use of
 LS> the freeware GNU C/C++ (EMX 0.9b) compiler and programming
 LS> environment for OS/2.

-> That'll include me.  :-)

 LS> I'd like to begin learning C/C++, and as
 LS> such would like to keep the cost down until I'm proficient enough
 LS> to justify the expense of a good compiler.

-> For your money, nothing is better than GNU C/C++, IMO.

 LS> With learning in
 LS> mind, is this a wise starting point, or is it a cumbersome,
 LS> deficient, and behind the times system that will hinder my
 LS> learning curve?

-> Woah - these are different questions.

-> Wise: what is your experience with command-line interfaces?  With Makefiles?
-> These are combersome, to say the least, w.r.t. GUI-based IDE's that do all t
-> work for you.

-> Deficient/behind the times: Not even close.  EMX doesn't seem to have proble
-> with my STL-based programming.

-> Hinder your learni
-> ng curve: The learning curve for a beginner would be higher, IMO, but only
-> because you have to learn the tools as well.  I found that learning off Turb
-> C (2.xx) or Borland C++ was a lot easier because I had access to all the
-> descriptions in an interactive environment.  I still haven't learned many of
-> the EMX options.

 LS> Is GNU easy to install, and is quality

-> I found it *very* easy to install:

-> [C:\]f:\lang\
-> [F:\lang\]unzip \tcpip\ncftp\emx*
-> ...
-> [F:\lang\]unzip \tcpip\ncftp\bsd*
-> ...
-> [F:\lang\]ed c:\config.sys
-> ...

-> That last step was the hardest - the environment variables had to be set up
-> properly.

 LS> documentation available?

-> Sure - \emx\docs and \emx\book are full of documentation.  I just haven't go
-> through it all.  :-)

 LS> Is it (relatively) complete?  Is

-> It is absolutely complete.  :-)

 LS> it better to take the $ plunge into a quality compiler and
 LS> programming environment right off the bat, and if so, which do
 LS> you recommend. Please, only people who have used, or are still
 LS> using GNU reply.

-> I went out and got:
->   - Borland C/C++ 1.5 for free (someone had a copy they weren't going to use
-> so they gave it to me...)  This caused me to go out and..
->   - bought Watcom C/C++ 10.6.  Much better.  Only problem I have is a lack o
-> an object-oriented class for PM programming.

-> I would like to try IBM's VAC++ 3.x, though... :-)  One of these days I'll
-> take that off the DevCon disks and try it.  :-)

-> Darin McBride

Thanks for the great advice and encouragement!  I guess I should have
said up front that I'm C/C++ illiterate.  Most of my programming has
been in the form of Borland's old `Turbo Basic', Power Basic, and
Quattro Pro macros.  I've done substantial work in these three.  I'm
also a DOS user since 1982, so the command line does not scare me one
bit.  With this insight, do you still recommend GNU C/C++?  One
respondent suggested that a lack of API's (or was that API doc's?) was
a major drawback to the use of GNU.  Any opinions?


lawrence.sayre{at}pcohio.com

 * 1st 2.00 #6643 * Man's mind is his basic tool of survival.


--- InterEcho 1.18