Am Dienstag, dem 30. Mai 2017 schrieb Rugxulo:

> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Please look for updates. I'm still working on it.
> >> > Though most work is for ports to other systems...
> Yes, I see.

Sorry for the late answer. But I worked on it further...

Now it is actually compilable with the version of bcc that comes
with FreeDOS. It has even more limitations, but nothing I
couldn't work around. However, no optimizations at all anymore.

Now it also has mouse support on almost all platforms.
For FreeDOS you must have ctmouse installed.

I've also separated the low level stuff for bcc into a separate
file and have put that under GPLv2 or later. So it can be
used for bcc or other projects.

> OpenWatcom (OSI) supports tiny model and has conio.h. You can always
> support both compilers, if desired. And it does cross-compile from
> many host OSes, including Windows or Linux.

The license of OpenWatcom is not accepted by the FSF.
That is important for me.

In that case I also think that maybe they are a little too pickey,
but I do respect their judgement.

> (Apparently Mateusz's Sudoku86 uses Turbo C. Also a fun game with
> graphics. Paku Paku used Turbo Pascal with lots of inline asm.)

And you included it in FreeDOS without recompiling it with a free
compiler? That's why you won't be accepted as a free distribution
for a long time. (I read some of that discussion in the archive.)

I'm not a part of that group, but I know how they're thinking.
And I agree with them most of the time.

Free software is not only about licenses. To be free you have to
be able to actually exercise the freedom. The freedom to make
changes to the source code is worth nothing without a compiler.
And it has to be a free compiler, otherwise you would again
give up your freedom... The system should be "self-hosting".
And it should not recommend unfree software (like compilers).

> AFAICT, the last release is 0.16.21 from 2014, updated by some other
> dude (not by Robert de Bath anymore):

Maybe I'll contact them later.

> I fully believe that using FPC is "better" than C. (Yeah right, that's
> what they all say.) However, I'm not familiar enough with C++ to say,
> but I think it's halfway equivalent, so it's not a bad choice over
> that either.

Well, the programming language is largely a matter of taste.
And C++ is definetly something I don't like!
C is small and simple and you can do everything with it.
That's what I like about it.
In the end you cannot do more with C++, It's all just abstractions.

| It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to 
| add, but when there is nothing more to remove.

    Antoine de Saint Exupéry, Ch. III: L'Avion, p. 60.

However I do admit that C is really dirty.

> >> > Yes, note that I took great pains to avoid stdio completely.
> >>
> >> I don't think printf is the main problem here. But for other compilers
> >> (OW or DJGPP), definitely yes. Still, if you don't need it, don't
> >> require it.
> >
> > Well, when you mentioned printf I thought you understood...
> > Actually not using it made the binaries with bcc several kilobytes
> > smaller. It's not, that it wasn't required. I had to write my own
> > function to print integers. And it's still several kilobytes
> > smaller. ;-)
> I don't remember the size difference with Dev86. It was much more
> noticeable with DJGPP and OpenWatcom than with, say, Turbo C. I've
> written my own printf("%ld",blah) replacement, too.

Well, it's not much, but it's noticable. 
Floats are deactivated by default in bcc.
It's more with diet libc.

Sorry for deleting so much, but I don't want to go deeper into
those discussions...

AKFoerster <>

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites,!
Freedos-devel mailing list

Reply via email to