1. DOS32 Translator and WATCOM
- Posted by Rolf Schroeder <r.schr at T-ONLINE.DE> Sep 10, 2000
- 429 views
Derek Parnell wrote, arguing against WATCOM: > ... > And the use of WATCOM itself, of course. I'm using some PC's with DOS and enjoy writing easily programs using the graphics included in EX. Would there be any other possibility to program and run EU-programs under DOS an small machines otherwise? I.e.: if I compute a sequence of 256-color pixel-images to create an animated GIF, how could i do this easily under WIN32? I just want to keep the easy programming possibilities! By the way: is there any good extender like the Causway extender for non WIN32 systems for non WATCOM compilers? I think Rob has to supply the translator for other commonly used c-compilers, but please keep also the WATCOM-compiler due to easy programming! Any other arguments or recommendations? Thanks, Rolf
2. Re: DOS32 Translator and WATCOM
- Posted by Derek Parnell <dparnell at BIGPOND.NET.AU> Sep 10, 2000
- 396 views
- Last edited Sep 11, 2000
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rolf Schroeder" <r.schr at T-ONLINE.DE> > Derek Parnell wrote, arguing against WATCOM: > > ... > > And the use of WATCOM itself, of course. > Oooops! I was trying to say "only WATCOM". It was tongue-in-cheek, but the fact is I can't get a WATCOM compiler, and anyhow, I don't want to pay for a another C compiler when I already have a few perfectly good ones. I simply cannot use Robert's translation tool because I don't have, and can't easily get a WATCOM compiler. I have no complaints about Robert supporting WATCOM compilers - just "only WATCOM" is my (repeat *my*) problem. The WATCOM complier does not appear to be a very common one in Australia. Most developers use Microsoft (70-80%?) or Borland (10-15%?). > I'm using some PC's with DOS and enjoy writing easily programs using the > graphics included in EX. Good on you. Sounds like a great hobby. I still like tinkering with my Amiga machines, even though they also are historic oddities. > Would there be any other possibility to program > and run EU-programs under DOS an small machines otherwise? Yes. The Borland compiler also creates DOS exectuables - even .COM files if you insist on it. Robert code have also generated assembler output, but this would have been a bit difficult. > I.e.: if I compute a sequence of 256-color pixel-images to create an > animated GIF, how could i do this easily under WIN32? I guess the same way as all the other people who are doing this type of work successfully. I can't see the *necessary* DOS-&-WATCOM-only connection that your statement seems to be implying. Or are you saying that its Euphoria makes this task easy? And of course, if you really wanted speed, try MASM32 for easy assembler development under Windows. > I just want to keep the easy programming possibilities! Yeah, who doesn't. But what's this got to do with supporting WATCOM (only)? > By the way: is there any good extender like the Causway extender for non > WIN32 systems for non WATCOM compilers? > > I think Rob has to supply the translator for other commonly used > c-compilers, Hear, hear! > but please keep also the WATCOM-compiler due to easy > programming! > YES! But to clarify, is the "easy programming" due to Euphoria or to WATCOM? > Any other arguments or recommendations? A native compiler for Euphoria, maybe? Anyhow, don't take what I rant about too seriously, as I like to stir a bit. Its nothing personal, just the "Australia way". I really believe that Robert has a great language in Euphoria, and the translator is also a neat idea. Its just a pity that I can't use it though. ---- cheers, Derek