Hello Lawrence!

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 the work for you.

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

Hinder your learning 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 Turbo 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
gone 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
of 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

--- GoldED/2 2.42.G0614