On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to be clear, I am thinking of FreeDOS here, so this isn't all
> meant to be totally off-topic. IMHO, FreeDOS 2.0 should have more
> compilers and interpreters, and I've weakly tried over the past few
> months to carefully add a few to iBiblio. Yes, interpreters are often
> (but not always) slower, but they are easier to use, and many times
> speed isn't relevant (unless done across heavy data or very
> frequently).
> For interpreters, (in lieu of only using DEBUG + QBASIC clones) I
> would suggest BWBasic, Lua, Regina REXX, AWK, or something similar for
> "BASE" for FreeDOS 2.0. (Or maybe Pascal-S or P5, but I'm not sure how
> well accepted those would be, maybe too limited.) Oh, and also maybe
> something related to ever-popular C:  EiC, PicoC, CINT [not built yet
> / untested], etc. (Perl and Python are too big, but perhaps we can use
> older Perl 5.005 or such.)
> And I've gotten Ruby 1.8.7 to build, and now that it's an ISO
> standard, maybe somebody would care, but dunno, who knows.   :-)

A long time back, FreeDOS community fought hard against having a default
compiler or assembler (this was around the time of the freeware TC 1.01
release).  Back then however, many of the tools were specific to one C
compiler/Assembler or another, and ports to open source equivalents & the
open compilers/assemblers were still catching up.  One problem almost all
of them had was building the FD kernel.

Personally, I've always liked MicroC and DJGPP.  Maybe some creative use of
UPX would be helpful.

Master HTML5, CSS3, ASP.NET, MVC, AJAX, Knockout.js, Web API and
much more. Get web development skills now with LearnDevNow -
350+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts.
SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at:
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to