BS>
  > 2. It is one of the few currently available compilers which can create
  >    16-bit OS/2 code.  This includes applications and device-drivers.
BS>

  When I read that sentence, I stumbled a bit when I read "currently
  available".  My mind wanted to substitute "remaining".  (-:

  The ability to generate 16-bit code is laudable if one is a device
  driver writer.  But as Peter has mentioned before now, there aren't
  that many device driver writers, especially compared to the number of
  applications writers.  And applications writers will only require the
  32-bit side of Watcom C++.  So let's keep this 16-bit stuff in its
  true perspective.

BS>
  > 3. It is an industrial-strength C/C++ compiler that arguably produces
  >    the fastest code available on intel 80x86 processors.  This is one of
  >    the reasons that you see so many PC games compiled with Watcom.
BS>

  Well, from experimentation I would definitely argue with that.  I'd
  say that the distinction between MetaWare's and Watcom's code
  generators is difficult to discern (although the two compilers are
  easily distinguished using other criteria (-:), and that IBM's code
  generator is not that far behind.

  Yes, everyone else (even EMX) is *leagues* ahead of the code generator
  in Borland C++, true, but that makes Borland the odd one out, rather
  than being a reflection on anyone else.  Were it a two horse race,
  that would put Watcom ahead, but as it is, it is a many horse race,
  and Borland is limping along two furlongs behind the rest of the pack.

  The reason that so many PC games are compiled with Watcom C++, by the
  way, is that until very recently Watcom C++ was the only DOS compiler
  with a royalty-free DOS extender.  I doubt *very* much that the
  efficiency of the code generator was the primary deciding factor.

BS>
  > 4. It needs far less memory than IBM's CSet++ or VAC.
  >
  > When I'm asked "what's the best compiler for OS/2?" I
generally answer
  > like this:
  >
  >* If you only intend to write 32-bit OS/2 code and have plenty of
  >* memory and CPU power, go with IBM's CSet++ or VAC.
  >*
  >* If you only have 8-16MB of RAM and a 486, need to write 16-bit apps
  >* or device drivers, or also want to be able to create applications
  >* for DOS or Windows then go with Watcom.
  >
  > There is no *best* compiler.  The "most suitable" one
depends entirely
  > upon the user's own requirements and priorities.
BS>

  Having used MetaWare High C++, Watcom C++, IBM VisualAge C++, EMX C++,
  and Borland C++, I'd omit the paragraphs marked with the asterisks.

  Only intending to write 32-bit OS/2 code is not enough of a reason to
  choose IBM VisualAge C++ (there are four other compilers that *also*
  generate 32-bit code), and only having 8Mb of RAM is not enough reason
  to choose Watcom C++ (Borland C++ has the least RAM requirements).

  I still use TDUMP in preference to EXEHDR you know ...

  > JdeBP  Keeper of the <
   > Highly Unofficial FIDONET OS2PROG C++ Compiler Pros and Cons List <
       > Available via File Request as PROSCONS.ZIP from 2:440/4.0 <
___
 X MegaMail 2.10 #0:
--- Maximus/2 3.00