Best development tools for Warp 3 and Warp 4

I have been playing around with Warp 3 for a while on an old 486, and
decided to try out Warp 4 on a modern machine. I have both systems
running, and would be interested in getting into some C/C++/Assembler
programing. Can anybody recommend what is the best/easiest/most stable
development environment for Warp 3, and same thign for Warp 4?

I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless
somebody can point me to a link...

Borland C++ 2.0 seems like a better choice, but is it for Warp, or 2.x
versions? And is there a newer version? I'm used to Borland for DOS
and Windows, so that would be great. Again, however, I can't seem to
find it....

I'm not sure about Warp 4 at all...

Any suggestions, comments, help would be great!

Thanks,

PolBit

On 11/21/07 07:13 am, PolBit wrote:[color=blue]
> I have been playing around with Warp 3 for a while on an old 486, and
> decided to try out Warp 4 on a modern machine. I have both systems
> running, and would be interested in getting into some C/C++/Assembler
> programing. Can anybody recommend what is the best/easiest/most stable
> development environment for Warp 3, and same thign for Warp 4?
>
> I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
> buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless
> somebody can point me to a link...
>
> Borland C++ 2.0 seems like a better choice, but is it for Warp, or 2.x
> versions? And is there a newer version? I'm used to Borland for DOS
> and Windows, so that would be great. Again, however, I can't seem to
> find it....
>
> I'm not sure about Warp 4 at all...
>
> Any suggestions, comments, help would be great!
>
> Thanks,
>
> PolBit[/color]

There is always OpenWatcom, [url]www.openwatcom.org[/url]. Which supports all
versions of OS/2.
Dave

Hi PolBit

PolBit wrote:[color=blue]
> I have been playing around with Warp 3 for a while on an old 486, and
> decided to try out Warp 4 on a modern machine.[/color]


Warp4 on a modern machine will take a little work. I suggest you have a
Google for helpful info especially if "modern" means multi-core cpu.


I have both systems[color=blue]
> running, and would be interested in getting into some C/C++/Assembler
> programing. Can anybody recommend what is the best/easiest/most stable
> development environment for Warp 3, and same thign for Warp 4?
>
> I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
> buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless
> somebody can point me to a link...
>
> Borland C++ 2.0 seems like a better choice, but is it for Warp, or 2.x
> versions? And is there a newer version? I'm used to Borland for DOS
> and Windows, so that would be great. Again, however, I can't seem to
> find it....
>
> I'm not sure about Warp 4 at all...
>
> Any suggestions, comments, help would be great!
>
> Thanks,
>
> PolBit[/color]



I'm not really up on what is available in the c/c++ development world.
As an alternative to c/c++ could I suggest an OS/2 "Delphi like" pascal
RAD called Sibyl
[url]http://wdsibyl.teamos2hamburg.de/index.php?&newlang=eng[/url]

Regards

Pete

On Nov 21, 11:20 am, Peter Brown <losepeteSPAM-ME-...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:[color=blue]
> Hi PolBit
>
> PolBit wrote:[color=green]
> > I have been playing around with Warp 3 for a while on an old 486, and
> > decided to try out Warp 4 on a modern machine.[/color]
>
> Warp4 on a modern machine will take a little work. I suggest you have a
> Google for helpful info especially if "modern" means multi-core cpu.
>
> I have both systems
>
>
>[color=green]
> > running, and would be interested in getting into some C/C++/Assembler
> > programing. Can anybody recommend what is the best/easiest/most stable
> > development environment for Warp 3, and same thign for Warp 4?[/color]
>[color=green]
> > I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
> > buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless
> > somebody can point me to a link...[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Borland C++ 2.0 seems like a better choice, but is it for Warp, or 2.x
> > versions? And is there a newer version? I'm used to Borland for DOS
> > and Windows, so that would be great. Again, however, I can't seem to
> > find it....[/color]
>[color=green]
> > I'm not sure about Warp 4 at all...[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Any suggestions, comments, help would be great![/color]
>[color=green]
> > Thanks,[/color]
>[color=green]
> > PolBit[/color]
>
> I'm not really up on what is available in the c/c++ development world.
> As an alternative to c/c++ could I suggest an OS/2 "Delphi like" pascal
> RAD called Sibyl
> [url]http://wdsibyl.teamos2hamburg.de/index.php?&newlang=eng[/url]
>
> Regards
>
> Pete[/color]

Pete,

Thanks for the suggestion, but I want to stick to what I know for
now :)

PolBit

In <e7d72c45-a51c-4992-932e-7b3a324c00ad@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, on
11/21/2007
at 07:13 AM, PolBit <polbit@comcast.net> said:

Hi,
[color=blue]
>Can anybody recommend what is the best/easiest/most stable
>development environment for Warp 3, and same thign for Warp 4?[/color]
[color=blue]
>I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
>buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless somebody
>can point me to a link...[/color]

They all have strong points and weak points. It depends on what you want
to do. VAC3.08 with FP8 installed should run OK on Warp3. OpenWatcom
should run well too and it is freely available. It's really not that
large if you only install OS/2 support. I've never run BC2.0 on Warp3,
but IMO BC has perhaps the most stable debugger and one of the better
resource workshops.

Keep in mind that Warp3 with FP4x installed is not all that different than
Warp4 with FP12.

Steven

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Levine <steve53@earthlink.bogus.net> MR2/ICE 3.00 beta 09pre #10183
eCS/Warp/DIY/14.103a_W4 [url]www.scoug.com[/url] irc.ca.webbnet.info #scoug (Wed 7pm PST)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 21, 9:54 am, Dave Yeo <dave.r....@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> On 11/21/07 07:13 am, PolBit wrote:
>
>
>[color=green]
> > I have been playing around with Warp 3 for a while on an old 486, and
> > decided to try out Warp 4 on a modern machine. I have both systems
> > running, and would be interested in getting into some C/C++/Assembler
> > programing. Can anybody recommend what is the best/easiest/most stable
> > development environment for Warp 3, and same thign for Warp 4?[/color]
>[color=green]
> > I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
> > buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless
> > somebody can point me to a link...[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Borland C++ 2.0 seems like a better choice, but is it for Warp, or 2.x
> > versions? And is there a newer version? I'm used to Borland for DOS
> > and Windows, so that would be great. Again, however, I can't seem to
> > find it....[/color]
>[color=green]
> > I'm not sure about Warp 4 at all...[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Any suggestions, comments, help would be great![/color]
>[color=green]
> > Thanks,[/color]
>[color=green]
> > PolBit[/color]
>
> There is always OpenWatcom,[url]www.openwatcom.org[/url]. Which supports all
> versions of OS/2.
> Dave[/color]

Dave,

I just downloaded it, and it looks promising, however it is huge, I
wonder how well will it run on Warp 3...

PolBit

On Nov 21, 11:20 am, Peter Brown <losepeteSPAM-ME-...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:[color=blue]
> Hi PolBit
>
> PolBit wrote:[color=green]
> > I have been playing around with Warp 3 for a while on an old 486, and
> > decided to try out Warp 4 on a modern machine.[/color]
>
> Warp4 on a modern machine will take a little work. I suggest you have a
> Google for helpful info especially if "modern" means multi-core cpu.
>
> I have both systems
>
>
>[color=green]
> > running, and would be interested in getting into some C/C++/Assembler
> > programing. Can anybody recommend what is the best/easiest/most stable
> > development environment for Warp 3, and same thign for Warp 4?[/color]
>[color=green]
> > I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
> > buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless
> > somebody can point me to a link...[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Borland C++ 2.0 seems like a better choice, but is it for Warp, or 2.x
> > versions? And is there a newer version? I'm used to Borland for DOS
> > and Windows, so that would be great. Again, however, I can't seem to
> > find it....[/color]
>[color=green]
> > I'm not sure about Warp 4 at all...[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Any suggestions, comments, help would be great![/color]
>[color=green]
> > Thanks,[/color]
>[color=green]
> > PolBit[/color]
>
> I'm not really up on what is available in the c/c++ development world.
> As an alternative to c/c++ could I suggest an OS/2 "Delphi like" pascal
> RAD called Sibyl
> [url]http://wdsibyl.teamos2hamburg.de/index.php?&newlang=eng[/url]
>
> Regards
>
> Pete[/color]

Pete,

By modern I mean a PIII 800MHz with 120Mb RAM and an ATI graphic card.
I guess I should've called it less outdated than a 486 that is running
my Warp 3 :)

Thanks for the suggestion on the Pascal environment, however I would
like to stick to what I know for now :)

PolBit

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:13:42 UTC in comp.os.os2.programmer.misc, PolBit
<polbit@comcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
> buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless
> somebody can point me to a link...[/color]

VA C++ 3.0x is probably about as stable a VAC release as you will find. It's
what I use for Pronews/2 (have tried 3.65 and rejected it because of problems
that I can't now remember). Waaay better than Borland which brings a whole new
meaning to 'buggy' :-)

--
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

PolBit wrote:[color=blue]
> I have been playing around with Warp 3 for a while on an old 486, and
> decided to try out Warp 4 on a modern machine. I have both systems
> running, and would be interested in getting into some C/C++/Assembler
> programing. Can anybody recommend what is the best/easiest/most stable
> development environment for Warp 3, and same thign for Warp 4?
>
> I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
> buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless
> somebody can point me to a link...
>
> Borland C++ 2.0 seems like a better choice, but is it for Warp, or 2.x
> versions? And is there a newer version? I'm used to Borland for DOS
> and Windows, so that would be great. Again, however, I can't seem to
> find it....
>
> I'm not sure about Warp 4 at all...
>
> Any suggestions, comments, help would be great!
>
> Thanks,
>
> PolBit[/color]

VAC 3.08 is the most stable VAC build from all accounts. It lacks
some modern C++ capabilities which is why it was dropped for use in
Mozilla several years ago. Not sure where to get it other than maybe
ebay. GCC 3.3.5 is available but I am not certain it will run on Warp
3.0 [url]ftp://ftp.netlabs.org/pub/gcc/[/url] OpenWatcom lacks some newer C++
capabilities but is available as you have found and I think will run
in Warp 3.0.
Andy

On 11/21/07 10:34 am, PolBit wrote:
[color=blue]
> By modern I mean a PIII 800MHz with 120Mb RAM and an ATI graphic card.
> I guess I should've called it less outdated than a 486 that is running
> my Warp 3 :)
>[/color]
Warp V4 should run great on that computer though Mozilla apps might like
more Ram :). Also out of the box Warp V4 (and older) have problems
dealing with HDs over 4 GBs. Just need to replace a driver or 2, google
or these groups are your friend.
Dave

On 11/21/07 10:31 am, PolBit wrote:[color=blue]
> On Nov 21, 9:54 am, Dave Yeo <dave.r....@gmail.com> wrote:[/color]
....[color=blue][color=green]
>> There is always OpenWatcom,[url]www.openwatcom.org[/url]. Which supports all
>> versions of OS/2.
>> Dave[/color]
>
> Dave,
>
> I just downloaded it, and it looks promising, however it is huge, I
> wonder how well will it run on Warp 3...
>
> PolBit[/color]

OpenWatcom should run fine on Warp V3, even on a 486 as long as you have
enough Ram. I'd guess anything over 16 MBs would be enough and if you
try disabling things then less though I haven't tried
Dave

In <Bd1D8ggkpXsj-pn2-9HSIXKLd3IXd@Rudi6>, on 11/23/2007
at 07:49 AM, "Ruediger Ihle" <NO_SPAM_R.Ihle@S-t.De> said:

Hi,
[color=blue]
>No, it hasn't. While the is pretty nice by design (especially
>considering it's age), it basically quit working at some fix-
>pack level of Warp3. So there is a fat chance to hang the
>system completely when trying to debug a multithreaded PM
>application.[/color]

That's too bad. I don't see this issue on eCS/Warp4.
[color=blue]
>Yep. Totally agreed.[/color]

If only URE knew how to properly align dialog elements, it would be first
on my list.
[color=blue]
>However, this
>approach may not be appropiate in the future, because BC
>lacks some features that become more and more important.[/color]

Yes. This can be a problem for apps that need advanced C++ features.
OpenWatcom has similar issues, but this problem may soon be resolved.

Steven

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Levine <steve53@earthlink.bogus.net> MR2/ICE 3.00 beta 09pre #10183
eCS/Warp/DIY/14.103a_W4 [url]www.scoug.com[/url] irc.ca.webbnet.info #scoug (Wed 7pm PST)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:30:08 UTC, Steven Levine
<steve53@earthlink.bogus.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I've never run BC2.0 on Warp3, but IMO BC has perhaps the most
> stable debugger[/color]

No, it hasn't. While the is pretty nice by design (especially
considering it's age), it basically quit working at some fix-
pack level of Warp3. So there is a fat chance to hang the
system completely when trying to debug a multithreaded PM
application.

[color=blue]
> and one of the better resource workshops.[/color]

Yep. Totally agreed.


I use Borland for initial application development, because
the compiler it's so damned fast and I'm so used to the IDE.
But for performance critical release versions, I normally
switch to some other compiler like GCC. However, this
approach may not be appropiate in the future, because BC
lacks some features that become more and more important.


What's also still very usable is Borland's Turbo Assembler.



--
Ruediger "Rudi" Ihle [S&T Systemtechnik GmbH, Germany]
[url]http://www.s-t.de[/url]
Please remove all characters left of the "R" in my email address

PolBit wrote:[color=blue]
> On Nov 21, 9:54 am, Dave Yeo <dave.r....@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>On 11/21/07 07:13 am, PolBit wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>I have been playing around with Warp 3 for a while on an old 486, and
>>>decided to try out Warp 4 on a modern machine. I have both systems
>>>running, and would be interested in getting into some C/C++/Assembler
>>>programing. Can anybody recommend what is the best/easiest/most stable
>>>development environment for Warp 3, and same thign for Warp 4?[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
>>>buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless
>>>somebody can point me to a link...[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Borland C++ 2.0 seems like a better choice, but is it for Warp, or 2.x
>>>versions? And is there a newer version? I'm used to Borland for DOS
>>>and Windows, so that would be great. Again, however, I can't seem to
>>>find it....[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>I'm not sure about Warp 4 at all...[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Any suggestions, comments, help would be great![/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Thanks,[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>PolBit[/color]
>>
>>There is always OpenWatcom,[url]www.openwatcom.org[/url]. Which supports all
>>versions of OS/2.
>>Dave[/color]
>
>
> Dave,
>
> I just downloaded it, and it looks promising, however it is huge, I
> wonder how well will it run on Warp 3...
>
> PolBit[/color]

You could also try emx. This isn't (AFAIK) c++ , but C only, and
supports all OS/w versions back to 2.0. GCC is also available.

On 11/24/07 04:17 pm, Peter Flass wrote:[color=blue]
> PolBit wrote:[color=green]
>> On Nov 21, 9:54 am, Dave Yeo <dave.r....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> On 11/21/07 07:13 am, PolBit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have been playing around with Warp 3 for a while on an old 486, and
>>>> decided to try out Warp 4 on a modern machine. I have both systems
>>>> running, and would be interested in getting into some C/C++/Assembler
>>>> programing. Can anybody recommend what is the best/easiest/most stable
>>>> development environment for Warp 3, and same thign for Warp 4?
>>>
>>>> I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
>>>> buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless
>>>> somebody can point me to a link...
>>>
>>>> Borland C++ 2.0 seems like a better choice, but is it for Warp, or 2.x
>>>> versions? And is there a newer version? I'm used to Borland for DOS
>>>> and Windows, so that would be great. Again, however, I can't seem to
>>>> find it....
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure about Warp 4 at all...
>>>
>>>> Any suggestions, comments, help would be great!
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>> PolBit
>>>
>>> There is always OpenWatcom,[url]www.openwatcom.org[/url]. Which supports all
>>> versions of OS/2.
>>> Dave[/color]
>>
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>> I just downloaded it, and it looks promising, however it is huge, I
>> wonder how well will it run on Warp 3...
>>
>> PolBit[/color]
>
> You could also try emx. This isn't (AFAIK) c++ , but C only, and
> supports all OS/w versions back to 2.0. GCC is also available.
>[/color]
EMX supports C++ and even object C. GCC is part of EMX though it is an
old version. Klibc is basically a fork of EMX with GPL parts replaced
and quite a few updates
Dave

"Ruediger Ihle" <NO_SPAM_R.Ihle@S-t.De> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Bd1D8ggkpXsj-pn2-9HSIXKLd3IXd@Rudi6...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:30:08 UTC, Steven Levine
> <steve53@earthlink.bogus.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I've never run BC2.0 on Warp3, but IMO BC has perhaps the most
>> stable debugger[/color]
>
> No, it hasn't. While the is pretty nice by design (especially
> considering it's age), it basically quit working at some fix-
> pack level of Warp3.[/color]

.... as did the Analyzer of VAC 3.0. I am pretty sure it came with the switch
from the "no high memory support" kernel to the "high memory support"
kernel.
[color=blue]
> I use Borland for initial application development, because
> the compiler it's so damned fast and I'm so used to the IDE.
> But for performance critical release versions, I normally
> switch to some other compiler like GCC. However, this
> approach may not be appropiate in the future, because BC
> lacks some features that become more and more important.[/color]

Are you thinking about the thunking issues ? As much as I can tell,
BC still uses the compatibility region mapping and implements that as a
macro where VAC 3.0 adds a function call (DosFlatToSel or its vice versa
counterpart DosSelToFlat) to the code where the function is part of the
kernel and most likely handles issues with high memory with the newer
kernels.
At least I would expect DosFlatToSel to return a NULL pointer when an
address in the high memory region is passed to it (since that cannot be
thunked to a 16-bit address unless memory aliasing is used, or does
DosFlatToSel even do that ?)
Also VAC 3.0 is smart enough to thunk all parameter pointers automatically
when you declare the function to be APIENTRY16 (old 16-bit calling
convention) whereas BC needs to be told explicitely for each function
parameter pointer But VAC 3.0 will also accept that so I tend to always
fully and correctly declare any parameter pointer to be a segmented (16:16)
pointer and not a flat (0:32) pointer.
[color=blue]
> What's also still very usable is Borland's Turbo Assembler.[/color]

Yes, but masm 6.0 is also still doing a good job. And it can also be found
for free on the internet.

Lars

"Trevor Hemsley" <Trevor.Hemsley@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:ddmzmmRHNdInTwqpzZdtSY8sTdKqs@trevor2.dsl.pipex.com...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:13:42 UTC in comp.os.os2.programmer.misc, PolBit
> <polbit@comcast.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
>> buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless
>> somebody can point me to a link...[/color]
>
> VA C++ 3.0x is probably about as stable a VAC release as you will find.
> It's
> what I use for Pronews/2 (have tried 3.65 and rejected it because of
> problems
> that I can't now remember). Waaay better than Borland which brings a whole
> new
> meaning to 'buggy' :-)[/color]

The buggiest thing about Borland could be resolved pretty easily.
It was the calling of the various "filter" tools (grep2msg.exe brcc2msg.exe
etc.) that would format the output of the tools so that you could click on
error messages in the monitor window and be taken to the error location.
The problem was that these tools were calling "malloc" to allocate memory
but never "free" to free it. Since these tools are called fairly often, that
lead to strange font problems, tool hang etc.

Fortuantely, the source code for these filter tools is included in the
Borland distribution.
Once I had fixed these filter tools, a whole bunch of instability issues
were gone.


Lars

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:00:48 UTC, "Lars Erdmann" <lars.erdmann@arcor.de>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Are you thinking about the thunking issues ?[/color]

Not really. I havn't used any thunking stuff in my programs
for a long time now. I was more referring to 64bit integers
and some newish C++ constructs.

[color=blue]
> Yes, but masm 6.0 is also still doing a good job. And it
> can also be found for free on the internet.[/color]

I have switched to NASM for some of my projectes because
of it's MMX/SSE support and it's multi-platform availability.


--
Ruediger "Rudi" Ihle [S&T Systemtechnik GmbH, Germany]
[url]http://www.s-t.de[/url]
Please remove all characters left of the "R" in my email address

Sir:

Dave Yeo wrote:[color=blue]
> On 11/24/07 04:17 pm, Peter Flass wrote:[color=green]
>> PolBit wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> On Nov 21, 9:54 am, Dave Yeo <dave.r....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/21/07 07:13 am, PolBit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have been playing around with Warp 3 for a while on an old 486, and
>>>>> decided to try out Warp 4 on a modern machine. I have both systems
>>>>> running, and would be interested in getting into some C/C++/Assembler
>>>>> programing. Can anybody recommend what is the best/easiest/most stable
>>>>> development environment for Warp 3, and same thign for Warp 4?
>>>>
>>>>> I've read about Visual Age C++ 3.0 for Warp 3, but it sounds a little
>>>>> buggy. Also, finding it these days is next to impossible, unless
>>>>> somebody can point me to a link...
>>>>
>>>>> Borland C++ 2.0 seems like a better choice, but is it for Warp, or 2.x
>>>>> versions? And is there a newer version? I'm used to Borland for DOS
>>>>> and Windows, so that would be great. Again, however, I can't seem to
>>>>> find it....
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure about Warp 4 at all...
>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestions, comments, help would be great!
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>> PolBit
>>>>
>>>> There is always OpenWatcom,[url]www.openwatcom.org[/url]. Which supports all
>>>> versions of OS/2.
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave,
>>>
>>> I just downloaded it, and it looks promising, however it is huge, I
>>> wonder how well will it run on Warp 3...
>>>
>>> PolBit[/color]
>>
>> You could also try emx. This isn't (AFAIK) c++ , but C only, and
>> supports all OS/w versions back to 2.0. GCC is also available.
>>[/color]
> EMX supports C++ and even object C. GCC is part of EMX though it is an
> old version. Klibc is basically a fork of EMX with GPL parts replaced
> and quite a few updates
> Dave
>[/color]
I was under the impression that the latest GCC was free of EMX. If so,
why add back another version of it? I was under the impression that it
just rewrote the paths for those ports whose authors failed to rewrite
common Unixisms (which ones?). Why did I install it?
--
Bill
Thanks a Million!

Steven Levine wrote:[color=blue]
> In <5408f1f1-7d75-482d-83b8-1013aa0e583a@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, on
> 11/22/2007
> at 03:06 AM, PolBit <polbit@comcast.net> said:
>[color=green]
>>Do I need anything else besides it though? Looks like it does not include
>>the resource designer, or whatever the name is.... Do I need the OS/2
>>Developers Toolkit from IBM for it?[/color]
>
> The dialog editor in the toolkit is pretty primitive. You should take a
> look at URE on Hobbes. Search for ure*.zip. It's got some nits, but it
> is pretty capable.[/color]

How does URE compare with Borland's Resource Workshop? I've been
meaning to dump Resource Workshop for a while and use a public tool, but
I hadn't found one that came close. I guess I was having pangs of
conscience about "acquiring" the tool. (Even though I spent hours on
the phone with the Borland sales channel *begging* them to sell me a
copy with no success.)

--
[Reverse the parts of the e-mail address to reply.]