Paul Rider wrote in a message to All:

 PR>         I'm new to Os/2, and have only idea's on what
 PR> compiler/assembler package to buy... alot of my personal
 PR> libraries are in assembley assembled via tasm, the rest in
 PR> c++ compiled in borlandc++ 3.1. 

If you use the Borland application frameworks, then you will almost
certainly want to get Borland C for OS/2, regardless of any other
consideration.

 PR> I've heard good things about Watcomm c++ v 10  but not
 PR> enough to order it.

It is a good compiler.  It won Editor's Choice for C++ compilers in the
recent PC Magazine review.  It generates superb code.

It no longer has free technical support after the initial 60 days or so.  A
lot of the claimed features are essentially non-functional, especially if
you are using the 16-bit compiler to make OS/2 device drivers and such. 
Watcom does not include the 16-bit OS/2 header files, but they are
available from IBM on the DevCon CD-ROM.  It is possible to make OS/2
device drivers with Watcom, but it involves quite a lot of undocumented
work.

 PR> For instance does Watcomm come with an assembler?

Yes: WASM.

 PR> Does it support inline asm with labels?

Yes.  Labels and variables are supported.

 PR> Is it a huge step comming from borland to watcomm ?  

That's a matter of opinion.  If you work at the command line using WMAKE,
you will find that the syntax for some of the Watcom tools is very
idiosyncratic.

The OS/2-hosted IDE for Watcom comes with IBM's EPM editor, which is a
fairly basic PM editor that omits niceties such as color syntax
highlighting. However, Watcom also ships a rather nice Vio editor, vi, that
does have color syntax highlighting and is actually pretty good, although
its existence seems to be undocumented.

The Watcom compiler is truly cross-platform, however.  For example, you can
make a target that runs under Windows from the OS/2 IDE, and vice versa.

 PR> Also, would I be better off sticking with borland after
 PR> having used it for so long, or is the initial disorientation
 PR> worth it for Watcomm. 

Borland defines a lot of its own functions as extensions to the C library,
and programmers often get used to using these without even realizing that
they are not portable to non-Borland compilers.  If you are in the habit of
using such functions, then you probably have a large base of source code by
now that depends upon these oddball functions.  Dealing with that will be a
major effort. Similarly, if you use OWL for Windows, then the Borland
compiler has a version of OWL for PM.

 PR> These are the only packages I am considering, because they
 PR> are the only ones I've heard anything about... If you have
 PR> any other suggestions feel free to suggest...

Johnathan de Boyne Pollard posts his OS/2 compilers FAQ into this echo
fairly often.  I imagine it will be coming around again soon.
 
-- Mike


---