MH> Well, I already spent a lot on Borland and don't 
MH> really want to go buy another.....:(
 RS>  No.. wait... don't cry.  EMX may not be the best, but it's got
 RS>  to be good.  Our perfectionist moderator uses it, which says
 RS>  a lot if you ask me. :-)

I also use a few other compilers which I won't mention.  ;-)  Each compiler 
has its merits, its strengths.  And each compiler has its drawbacks.  Same as 
languages in general - I use C++ most of the time, but once in a while I 
switch to Java (especially if I need to use sockets and other TCP/IP 
protocols).
DN>>The only C++ compiler I know of that will compile an OS/2 executable
DN>>while hosted on a DOS system is Watcom. It also produces better
DN>>object code than the GNU compiler [at least better than EMX 0.9b].
See, here, Watcom obviously has two strengths that EMX doesn't.  Er, woops.  
Better make that just one: EMX can produce OS/2 executables while hosted 
under DOS.  And I'm not sure which levels are being compared... EMX 0.9b, but 
0.9c (Fix4) is the latest.  Which Watcom?  I have 10.6, but 11 is the latest 
(AFAIK).  I stopped with Watcom when I graduated... too expensive.  I'll just 
borrow the compiler we use at work.  :-)  After all, the compiler is built on 
the floor above me.  :-)
---
---------------