Subj : Re: bcc 5.02 command line v. ide To : borland.public.cpp.borlandcpp From : David Morris Date : Fri Dec 03 2004 03:07 pm "Wayne A. King" wrote in message news:41afc2e0.1061315@newsgroups.borland.com... > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 07:48:25 +0800, "David Morris" > wrote: > > >... and possibly develop a DOS 32bit version, (for which > >Open Watcom is a more logical option). > > The free DJGPP C++ compiler also produces 32-bit DPMI > executables. The optional RHIDE IDE has the look and feel > of Turbo C++ 3.0 for DOS: http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/ > Co-incidentally I had a look at (some screen shots) of RHIDE yesterday. As a DOS application it looked great. I would have loved it back in 1994. Today, I really want a Windows IDE, that has a an editor that is fast and compact with lots of different languages supported. The Editor I want is close to Crimson (http://www.crimsoneditor.com/). But the IDE has not been invented yet. PSPad (http://www.pspad.com/index_en.html )comes close - but I think that the SYN component just isn't as good as Crimson, and it doesn't give me the same confidence. I liked the Watcom compiler because it is well supported by well known (and presumably) good DMPI extenders. Also, has anyone done any benchmarking between DJGPP and Watcom? Historically the Watcom compiler was known to generate fast code. I could see a day when the same code base produces Borland 16bit DOS (and that won't change),32 DOS bit Watcom?, and 32 bit Win with Visual C. There is an amazing number of good and even good free compilers out there. regards DM .