1. For Kat: Openwatcom
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo??om>
May 16, 2008
-
Last edited May 17, 2008
Openwatcom:
http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Main_Page
Download:
http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Download
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
2. Re: For Kat: Openwatcom
- Posted by Kat <KAT12 at c?osahs?net>
May 16, 2008
-
Last edited May 17, 2008
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Openwatcom:
> <a
> href="http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Main_Page">http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Main_Page</a>
>
> Download:
> <a
> href="http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Download">http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Download</a>
Like i said, openwatcom != watcom, and version 3.1 was compiled with watcom, not
openwatcom. So if i try to fix the bug in 3.1, i need watcom, because who knows
if it will compile properly, or exibit the same behavior, with openwatcom?
Jeremy told me in #euphoria they were at one time the same. But they aren't now,
as openwatcom has evolved. So they aren't the same. So i can not compile 3.1 the
same way RDS did it, and still try to debug it,, or i can wait for 4.0 in a week
or so and ,, no, i do not want to run that same app over again, it's been running
6 days, 24-7, and it's only 1/2 thru, i think. Or i can use Matt's and MikeS's
suggestions.
> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
> system that works.
Lets go back to that system!
Kat
3. Re: For Kat: Openwatcom
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at ?ahoo.co?>
May 16, 2008
-
Last edited May 17, 2008
Sorry, just trying to help.
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
4. Re: For Kat: Openwatcom
- Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at cowg?r.?om>
May 16, 2008
-
Last edited May 17, 2008
Kat wrote:
>
> Jeremy told me in #euphoria they were at one time the same. But they aren't
> now, as openwatcom has evolved. So they aren't the same.
I said: "I'd say it (watcom to open watcom) hasn't changed that much, if it
(speaking about the bug) exists in 3.1, it'll be there in 4.0 as well."
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
5. Re: For Kat: Openwatcom
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> Kat wrote:
> >
> > Jeremy told me in #euphoria they were at one time the same. But they aren't
> > now, as openwatcom has evolved. So they aren't the same.
>
> I said: "I'd say it (watcom to open watcom) hasn't changed that much, if it
> (speaking about the bug) exists in 3.1, it'll be there in 4.0 as well."
Yes, this is true. Does it contradict what i said you said? Is there some
page/email layout you'd prefer i used to denote meaning, for better
understanding, like indentation or something?
But just as "upgrading" mirc broke script, and "upgrading" (lol) windoze broke
code, and "upgrading" euphoria over the years (and win32lib, owie!) broke things,
i can't help but think that "upgrading" openwatcom over the years has also
changed how RDS's watcom built the exe.
Why is it when someone calls my code a 4-letter word for excrement on irc, i
shouldn't take it so hard,,, but anything i say that is way way short of that, or
is even a complement, or acceptance with a grain of salt, is taken so hard in
this webmail context?
Kat
6. Re: For Kat: Openwatcom
Kat wrote:
> Like i said, openwatcom != watcom, and version 3.1 was compiled with watcom,
> not openwatcom. So if i try to fix the bug in 3.1, i need watcom, because who
> knows if it will compile properly, or exibit the same behavior, with
> openwatcom?
>
>
> Kat
here's what looks like an old link that still works. hope it helps.
http://openwatcom.mirrors.pair.com/11.0c/
Yours, OtterDad
Don't sweat it -- it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes. Gene Spafford
7. Re: For Kat: Openwatcom
OtterDad wrote:
>
> Kat wrote:
>
> > Like i said, openwatcom != watcom, and version 3.1 was compiled with watcom,
> > not openwatcom. So if i try to fix the bug in 3.1, i need watcom, because
> > who
> > knows if it will compile properly, or exibit the same behavior, with
> > openwatcom?
> >
> >
> > Kat
>
> here's what looks like an old link that still works. hope it helps.
>
> <a
> href="http://openwatcom.mirrors.pair.com/11.0c/">http://openwatcom.mirrors.pair.com/11.0c/</a>
Wow, thanks, Otterdad! Others besides me were happy to get that url too.
Kat
