On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:36:29PM +0100, Eric Auer wrote: > > Yes, but for starters the "modest" programming languages could be included: > > GW BASIC, 2-3 Forth compilers (they're tiny in size), C--, XPL0 etc. If I'm > > Nobody programs useful stuff with GW BASIC, C-- or XPL0.
I meant LEARNING first of all. No need for Watcom line of "full blown" compilers for learning purposes. > Even with Forth, useful stuff is not written on DOS. So it's time to change it, isn't it? How it can be changed without even that few KB spent for humble Forth compiler? > If you want modest, try Ruxulo's tiny, working OpenWatcom C subset :-) I somehow don't believe it can be as modest as DX Forth or C--, for example. And no, I also don't believe when there will be Watcom C on CD the users immediately start coding "useful stuff for DOS". ;) When the need arises for such "big" compiler they surely will find it on ibiblio. > > correct also the ones "released" by Embarcadero (while not open-sourced) > > Turbo Pascal 3.02 and Turbo C 2.01 also could be included. > > Those could not legally be included and obviously FreeDOS should > show off the nice existing open source alternatives if you ask me. But Embarcadero can be contacted whether they allow it or not. They may even send back a written permit. Nice existing open source alternatives quite frequently have not-so-nice size; compare, for example, the size of mentioned Turbo Pascal 3.02 (less than one diskette 360 KB!) to size of Free Pascal. Or A86 to NASM. Yes, I'm aware Free Pascal and NASM offer "a bit more" - the question is: does someone who just wants to learn Pascal (or ML) need that "bit more" already at the very start? IMHO it may even bring confusion. > > I mean the ones that have modest space requirements, while at the same time > > offer immediate results for beginner programmer (and just fun). > > Which is why I have often voted small but nice things into FULL > and a few things even into BASE in the current poll, instead of > leaving those in EXTRA or ONLINE. Because it allows to show the > variety and maybe even fun which are possible in DOS to those > who "only" have downloaded the FULL CD which I think would be > a good compromise between size and features. Of course a 10 MB > FreeDOS would still outperform MS DOS 6.22 in various fields, > but it would be less fun and honestly, who worries about 10 MB > in times when people send 10 MB photos of their dinner by chat? > > > - let's consider what "average DOS user" may need... > > That is EXACTLY why the poll / survey is waiting for you :-) > There you can make a detailed selection and recommendation. > > ==> https://fd.lod.bz/survey :-) Of course I'll visit it. > > - when in a need for more - everything FreeDOS-related can be downloaded > > Not really, as many DOS users lack network connectivity even > if we include all available WIRED LAN drivers as part of BASE. So they may download it using their Android tablets and move to DOS using memory cards (that can be read as HDDs). > > - additionally DVD iso-images can be created that will contain all > > That would be a waste of bandwidth for those who do not need ALL. Actually it may be seen as this - but it's rather common nowadays (see Linux and xBSDs practice etc.). OK, it were just my 2c -- regards, Zbigniew _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
