A creature called Pete Cassetta screamed at Mike Stella:

 PC> For what it's worth, I own both Borland C++ and Watcom
 PC> C/C++, so I'll offer my opinion.  If you use Borland C++ 3.1
 PC> for Windows, you'll find Borland C++ for OS/2 very familiar.
 PC>  I think there's no question that Watcom C/C++ 10.0 is a
 PC> better compiler, in terms of the quality of the code it
 PC> produces, but it has a much more clunky IDE, no graphical
 PC> editor, non-standard use of .DEF files, no OS/2 C++
 PC> application framework, and compiles rather slowly. 
 PC> Borland's product will be immediately familiar to you, it
 PC> has a nice (well, nice enough) resource editor for OS/2,
 PC> compiles very quickly, comes with OWL 2.0 for OS/2, and a
 PC> nice graphical debugger.  If you're producing commercial
 PC> applications, I'd say take a look at Watcom C/C++; it's hard
 PC> to beat its code quality.  If you're just getting into OS/2
 PC> programming from Windows, Borland C++ will give you a much
 PC> easier transition and a friendlier and richer programming
 PC> environment.  Actually, my recommendation to professionals
 PC> is that they buy several compilers; each one has its
 PC> strengths and weaknesses, and I feel I get my money's worth
 PC> out of each of the three OS/2 compilers I own (I also have C
 PC> Set++).  You also might consider reading PC Magazine's C++
 PC> compiler review in their April 11 issue.  They did a nice
 PC> job of comparing the various compilers available for OS/2. 
 PC> Hope this helps. 

   I think you sent this to the wrong person.  I own both Watcom 10.0 and
BCOS2 1.0, and use Watcom exclusively.

   .\\ike Stella

--- ShadowMail/2 1.00