Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!usc!apple!rutgers!rochester!kodak!atexnet!cvbnet!feds19!jshekhel
From: jshekhel@feds19.prime.com (Jerry Shekhel )
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows programming in C
Message-ID: <600@cvbnetPrime.COM>
Date: 2 Jul 90 15:50:10 GMT
References: <118500024@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> <41900010@sunb3> <1990Jun27.163921.2125@chinet.chi.il.us> <1270@media01.UUCP> <22922@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Sender: postnews@cvbnetPrime.COM
Reply-To: jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel )
Organization: Prime Computervision, Bedford MA
Lines: 32

In article <22922@boulder.Colorado.EDU> wallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes:
>In article <1270@media01.UUCP> pkr@media01.UUCP (Peter Kriens) writes:
>>The biggest problem seems to be that Microsoft allowed the windows
>>developers to specialize the linker and the compiler. 
>
>If you are looking for something that is closer to X and the Macintosh,
>look to OS/2 version 2.0 This is were windowing software on the PC gets
>rid of its segmentation problems that make Windows and OS/2 ver 1.x so
>hard! 
>

I develop on OS/2 1.x, and guess what -- it ain't so hard!  I just use the
large memory model and ignore the segmentation "problems".  OS/2 runs in
protected mode with real virtual memory, so the OS shuffles memory around
without the program ever knowing about it.  I've NEVER had to use "far" or
"near" in an OS/2 program, although you do have to use "_loadds" for all
functions called back by PM (or alternately, register them as EXPORTS in the
DEF file).

As far as the API is concerned, I find it very logical.  The Win library is
object-oriented, which, I think, makes it easier to develop with than the Mac.
The Gpi (graphics) library has capabilities that the base Mac and X libraries
can only dream about.

Overall, I find OS/2 to be an excellent development environment.  I'm about
to try Windows.

>
>Dean Wallwey
>

-- Jerry Shekhel