As far as I know, it is just for assembler, not C... (but nice all the
same!).
I did some experiments in the past with Nomyso till JWASM appeared
(motivated by the fact that older JEMM only compiled under MASM).
Aitor
2012/4/11 Bernd Blaauw
> Op 11-4-2012 20:25, Rugxulo schreef:
>
> >> (PS: If
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Michael B. Brutman
wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 9:17 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> I don't understand the "changing OSes and compilers due to arbitrary
> limitations comment". Are you saying that people are being forced to
> move away from OW because there is no 64 bit su
On 4/11/2012 9:17 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> It's not insane at all. In fact, some people *like* static binaries.
> :-) And they are sure a billion times smaller than silly GLIBC. I'm
> not saying GLIBC doesn't have advantages, but I think OW is perfectly
> acceptable for Linux. However, no shared lib su
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Michael B. Brutman
wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 1:25 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Michael B. Brutman
>> wrote:
>>> For hard-core application programming where you need to use a few BIOS
>>> and DOS interrupts I like to use C and C++ (car
On 4/11/2012 1:25 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Michael B. Brutman
> wrote:
>> For hard-core application programming where you need to use a few BIOS
>> and DOS interrupts I like to use C and C++ (carefully). C gives you a
>> tremendous amount of control and flexib
Op 11-4-2012 20:25, Rugxulo schreef:
>> (PS: If we have FreeDOS code that doesn't compile under OW I'd be
>> interested in seeing it. A few #defines can fix a lot of problems. The
>> debugging is the hard part.)
>
> There is a tcc2wat "library" by Blair Campbell on iBiblio, if anyone
> wants to
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Michael B. Brutman
wrote:
>
> For hard-core application programming where you need to use a few BIOS
> and DOS interrupts I like to use C and C++ (carefully). C gives you a
> tremendous amount of control and flexibility.
>
> Open Watcom is open source and is r
For hard-core application programming where you need to use a few BIOS
and DOS interrupts I like to use C and C++ (carefully). C gives you a
tremendous amount of control and flexibility.
My two favorite compilers are:
Borland Turbo C++ 3.0 for DOS: I did most of my early mTCP work. It
reall
At 08:32 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
> > For more than half of those languages, there doesn't exist a (at
> > least serious) DOS implementation.
> > You rather have to use what is available, and that is fairly limited...
>
>There is easily an implementation for more than half of those, but
>often
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
>>2012/4/6, Alex :
>>
>> > Just to be clear, which is the best Pascal version available to date
>> > for FreeDOS?
>
> Well, I don't know...
> I used 3.02 on DOS for a long time, [xyz] would be clear
> advantages over 3.0. And it was still r
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 03:57 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>>
>>On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
>> > At 02:59 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>> >
>> >>Also see Gautier's "Transparent Language Popularity Index" (updated
>> >>each month):
>> >
At 05:05 PM 4/6/2012, Zbigniew wrote:
>2012/4/6, Alex :
>
> > Just to be clear, which is the best Pascal version available to date
> > for FreeDOS?
>
>Perhaps TP 3.0 - maximal effect taken out of minimum of code?
>
>#v+
>Turbo Pascal 3 for MS-DOS was released in September 1986. Being
>version 3, th
At 04:45 PM 4/6/2012, Alex wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> > 16-bit is dead, no machines are made purely 16-bit anymore. AMD64 long
> > mode doesn't (properly) support 16-bit at all, and popular compilers
> > like GCC never cared to support it. Also, people hate it, so
2012/4/6, Alex :
> What, in your view, are the best production-ready languages currently
> available to FreeDOS users?
Don't forget various Forth variants.
> By production-ready I also mean that they must have a minimal set of
> libraries...
Depends, what actually you mean by "minimal set of li
2012/4/6, Alex :
> Just to be clear, which is the best Pascal version available to date
> for FreeDOS?
Perhaps TP 3.0 - maximal effect taken out of minimum of code?
#v+
Turbo Pascal 3 for MS-DOS was released in September 1986. Being
version 3, there were lesser releases prior to it and flashier
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Rugxulo wrote:
> 16-bit is dead, no machines are made purely 16-bit anymore. AMD64 long
> mode doesn't (properly) support 16-bit at all, and popular compilers
> like GCC never cared to support it. Also, people hate it, so a lot of
> C code uses 32-bit-isms, sadly.
At 03:57 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> > At 02:59 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
> >
> >>Also see Gautier's "Transparent Language Popularity Index" (updated
> >>each month):
> >>
> >>http://lang-index.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > Sorry, but as
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 02:59 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>
>>Also see Gautier's "Transparent Language Popularity Index" (updated
>>each month):
>>
>>http://lang-index.sourceforge.net/
>
> Sorry, but as far as programming for (Free)DOS is concerned, that
> li
At 02:59 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>Also see Gautier's "Transparent Language Popularity Index" (updated
>each month):
>
>http://lang-index.sourceforge.net/
Sorry, but as far as programming for (Free)DOS is concerned, that
list is completely irrelevant...
Ralf
--
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Alex wrote:
>
> The discussion is getting interesting. I have changed the subject of
> this thread to Programming languages in FreeDOS, if you dont't mind.
>
> What, in your view, are the best production-ready languages currently
> available to FreeDOS users?
>
Has anyone tried Lua in DOS?
In theory Lua is supposed to run nicely on all platforms, but how well
does it play with the DOS environment specifically? I know, it all
depends on the availability of libraries/modules. So let me rephrase
the question: does anyone know of Lua extensions for the DOS
en
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 12:06 PM 4/6/2012, Eric Auer wrote:
>>DJGPP is a free open DOS port of GNU C/C++ and OpenWatcom C is
>>also pretty open. None of the Turbo things are open, although
>>some were free in the Borland Software Museum for a while. Now
>>you hav
22 matches
Mail list logo
