Hallo Bruce,

Bruce Simpson schreef dit aan PAUL BLONDE:


 PB> RL>> I don't TRUST borland anymore.  I was left high and
 PB> RL>> dry with 3.1 when 4.0 was windows only.  I don't
 PB> RL>> have windows on my system, never have, and have no
 PB> RL>> intention of getting it.  I'm forced to use it at
 PB> RL>> rutgers, that's enough for me.

 BS> In which case you'll probably want to go with a compiler-vendor who has
 BS> significantly more commitment to the OS/2 environment than Borland has.
 BS> If you decide to go solely with OS/2 at any time then go with IBM
 BS> CSet++, if you are at a stage where you need DOS, Win and OS/2 support
 BS> then take a good look at Watcom.


I don't like Borland much, but I love their OWL libraries, which are -more or
less- portable between Windows and OS/2. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong,
but Watcom doesn't have such a thing. It's the only thing what's keeping me
from buying Watcom. So what's the big deal about it's famous portability?

BTW, the Windows compiler of Borland is neat, but I hate the Os/2 version for
being OS/2 unaware and unstable.


Toedeloe,
Jorgen de Gier

--- GEcho 1.00