Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!quasi-eli!cs.yale.edu!spolsky-joel
From: spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Using Windows and MS C 6.0
Keywords: C, Windows, background
Message-ID: <26066@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 9 Sep 90 01:02:42 GMT
References: <1890@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
Sender: news@cs.yale.edu
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu
Originator: spolsky@suned.CS.Yale.Edu

In article <1890@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> tim@watson.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy Owen Lesniak) writes:
| 1.  Would background compilations work better (take less memory, run faster)
| 	if I did not compile from the Workbench.

Yes, in fact, I think that the PWB is the slowest possible way to
develop! Anyway, it is redundant under windows; I recommend just
running your favorite editor (even PWB) in one window, then write a
nice makefile, and add "Make" to the program manager, with an
appropriate PIF... Much faster than making the stupid PWB, which
always thinks it must swap itself in and out, start the make for you.

PS, the Windows Software Development Kit includes a document on-line
which describes using PWB under windows. It is called PWBINFO.WRI; it
is explicitly copyright so I can't post it here. It doesn't mention
anything about PIF's; I guess the defaults would be OK.

Joel Spolsky
spolsky@cs.yale.edu                                        Talk Hard.