Hi Jim,
On 6/2/2025 14:25, Jim Hall via Freedos-devel wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 7:55 AM Bruno Ribeiro via Freedos-devel
> <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>
> [..]
>> Anyway, I think self-hosting is a technical property in alignment with
>> the very purpose of free software. It's a nice feature! In my
>> bare-metal retro endeavors, I'm fond of being able to modify and build
>> any software in place, without resorting to foreign systems.
>>
>
> This is probably a longer answer than you needed, but here you go:
Thanks for the detailed reply! I enjoyed very much reading it.
> Our preferred C compiler for FreeDOS programs is OpenWatcom C, and our
> preferred assembler is NASM.
That's good to know. But why not WASM, for consistency? Perhaps NASM
has more features, stronger support for macros and/or is better
maintained? Rules for using one over another? (Like pure vs hybrid
language packages?)
> But if the program didn't need to get updated, then not. And it's
> important to note the difference here: a distinguishing feature of DOS
> is that it's backwards compatible. Even MS-DOS 6.22 could run programs
> written for PC DOS 1. FreeDOS is an open source implementation of DOS,
> so FreeDOS can run these older DOS programs too. And DOS doesn't use
> the shared library model of Linux and other Unix systems; there's no
> dependency on an underlying library, once you have compiled a DOS
> program, it's standalone. So FreeDOS programs don't need to be rebuilt
> all the time just because a library changes, like on Linux -- if the
> program works, it will keep working. And that's why some older
> ("started in the 1990s") FreeDOS programs have notes to compile it
> with TurboC or something else, because it just keeps going and you
> don't need to rebuild it for each new FreeDOS distribution.
Indeed, that's an important distinction. The inherent downside is that
ASSIGN.EXE, for instance, have been carried over for decades and if
modification becomes necessary (bug fixes or adding new features) one
cannot modify and rebuild it with the tools available in the
distribution right away.
> Folks are always welcome to update an older FreeDOS program to "port"
> it to OpenWatcom. If you'd like to do this for any programs you find
> that require a closed source compiler, please do. If there isn't an
> active maintainer for that program (and likely not, or the program
> might have been updated already) then you can become the "maintainer"
> for the purpose of updating it to OpenWatcom.
Sure! In case I successfully add building support for Open Watcom in any
package, I'll post here for further instructions on how to best
integrate my work. I'll try not to disrupt any existing build system
already supported.
As my free time allows, I'm going over package by package as listed here:
https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.3/official/report.html
If the wiki were up it could be a good idea to add a page with a table
having a row for each package listing their respective supported
building system, in order to track progress on this.
Any suggestion on how to execute or best document progress on such tasks
is welcome.
> I'll add that several vendors have since released their compilers for
> free (gratis, if not open source) and we link to them from the "For
> developers" page on our website.
> <https://www.freedos.org/about/devel/> For example, Embarcadero bought
> out Borland many years ago, and released TurboC and TurboC++ for free
> via their website, and Micro-C is also available from Dave Dunfield's
> website.
Neither has free/open source licenses, I presume?
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
