Re: [Mingw-users] MinGW vs Microsoft: [WAS: Archives and 'X']

[Xavier M. <xav...@ca...>]

Visual C++ Debugger is better than GDB.

We are friday, can I ? ;)

Earnie Boyd a écrit :
> Quoting John Emmas <jo...@ti...>:
> 
>> Let me just ask a slightly dumb "newbie" question then....  what would be
>> the reason for building with MinGW rather than (say) Microsoft Visual C++?
>> Is MinGW better at compiling code that expects to be built in a Posix
>> environment, for example?
>>
> 
> MinGW compilers are Open Source.
> MinGW extends the C runtime with some emulated POSIX functions.
> MinGW extends the C runtime for C99 compatibility.
> MinGW runtime source is distributable.
> MinGW windows API source is distributable.
> MinGW runtime and windows API is incomplete but contains the routines 
> important enough for others to add patches.
> MinGW does not have its own pretty visual IDE but can be used with many IDE.
> MinGW compilers can use Microsoft's complete runtime and windows API; 
> they don't have to use the MinGW runtime.
> 
> Microsoft compilers are Closed Source.
> Microsoft runtime and windows API are not distributable.
> Microsoft runtime and windows API are complete.
> Microsoft compilers can only use the Microsoft runtime.
> Microsoft provides its own visual IDE.
> 
> If others can think of things to add, please do.
> 
> Earnie
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by:
> SourcForge Community
> SourceForge wants to tell your story.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
> _______________________________________________
> MinGW-users mailing list
> Min...@li...
> 
> You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This list observes the Etiquette found at 
> http://www.mingw.org/Mailing_Lists.
> We ask that you be polite and do the same.
> 
> Most annoying abuses are:
> 1) Top posting
> 2) HTML/MIME encoded mail
> 3) Improper quoting
> 4) Improper trimming