From: Oscar F. <of...@wa...> - 2002-05-23 17:37:20
|
Earnie Boyd <ear...@ya...> writes: [snip] > MinGW version 2 will support the C99 standard which MS will refuse > to do. Danny, is now trying to figure out how to keep backward > compatibility to MS non-compatibility. So, we will become even > better than MSVC in one sense. MinGW is actually better than MSVC in more than one way. For instance, only compilers with a modern EDG front-end have better C++ compliance than GCC 3.1. However, AFAIK there is only one of such compilers for Windows and its code generation needs much improvement, to say it diplomatically. In any case, even GCC 2.95 is far ahead of MSVC 7.0 on C++ compliance. [snip] > As has been pointed out by others, it already is easy enough for the > beginners. Most startups are interested in MSVC because the corporate > push is that direction. The advent of CLI, .NET, SOAP and XML doesn't > give us much chance toward being a competitor for MSVC. Some people knows how to program efficiently without using the latest MS trashware. Before the .NET hype we had the COM hype and MinGW is still alive, isn't it? [snip] > More popularity == more visibility == more corporate use. So, if you > speak to corporate that MinGW is a viable solution as compared to MSVC, > it'll become more popular. However, are apples really oranges? Earnie, there are lots of factors besides bells-and-whistles for picking a tool. I could say that, compared with Borland, the "customer support" offered by MinGW is superb. > Earnie. > P.S.: White room techniques to include the CLI into MinGW will be highly > rewarding. The CLI itself is already open source. I would like to see > the Visual-MinGW become the replacement for "Visual Studio .NET". > Please help with that project. No, thanks. I don't need CLI and Emacs is a fine IDE ;-) -- Oscar |