Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!apple!netcom!resnicks From: resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc Subject: Re: Flames on UNIX/OS/2/Microsoft Message-ID: <23638@netcom.COM> Date: 11 Feb 91 18:09:14 GMT References: <451@nec-gw.nec.com> <23245@netcom.COM> <21787.27b47dd7@cluster@ukc.ac.uk> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest} Lines: 70 In article <21787.27b47dd7@cluster@ukc.ac.uk> cur022%cluster@ukc.ac.uk (Bob Eager) writes: >In article <23245@netcom.COM>, resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) writes: >> In article <451@nec-gw.nec.com> brahms@NECAM.tdd.sj.nec.com (George Skillman) writes: >>>2) OS/2 doesn't provide core files when your program crashes. > >Core files are history. Interactive debuggers are here to stay! > >> HPFS is nice, and OS/2 will magicly check it if it wasn't shut down. >> There are a lot of DOS utilities which will deal with the FAT system >> and to some extent, it's a must the DOS be used to do this. For >> example, if drive C: is a FAT system, you cannot run chkdsk becuase >> the system has the drive locked. I think a maintenance mode like >> with UNIX would be handy. > >By maintenance mode I assume you mean single user mode (in UNIX terms). The >OS/2 installation disk makes a good maintenance disk. Use ESC at the IBM >logo to escape back to an OS/2 prompt with drive C unlocked. You can make >your own maintenance disk using this as a basis, tailoring it to your system. >I changed the PMSHELL= in CONFIG.SYS to be CMD.EXE (instead of the installation >program), and added the HPFS stuff. I also deleted unwanted drivers (the >installation disk needs to boot anywhere and has all of them) and added >things like CHKDSK. Magic! > Although that's a good idea, building the "maintenance disk" is convulted at best, since MS doesn't provide a standard meathod of making a bootable OS/2 diskette. I realize this can be done, my complaint is that MS didn't provide the means of doing it. (I know, samantics. =]) >>>5) Lastly, as everyone knows, OS/2 is currently written in assembly > >Is it? Do you have proof? I am sure it is mostly C. Anyway, UNIX has *some* >assembler too....I speak as a UNIX user of 16 years. > Looks more like C to me. Imagine doing all that structure manipulation in assembler! Ugh! >> Turbo C for OS/2 ... > >I have Zortech C++ for OS/2..... [Flame: ON] Why, when I talk about *C* compilers on the various newsgroups here, do I get told, "Well, so-and-so's C++ compiler is great!" I don't like C++, I will not program in C++, and I will not spend the additional money on a C++ compiler just because it can support C. (Personally, I don't like Zortech, but that's my opinion.) [Flame: Off] C and C++ are different langauges. One supports the other, with a cost. If I were going to spend the money on an OOPL, I would spend it on a *real* OOPL, Smalltalk. :) Cheers! Steve -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- resnicks@netcom.com, apple!camphq!105!steve.resnick, IFNA: 1:143/105.0, USNail: 530 Lawrence Expressway, Suite 374 Sunnyvale, Ca 94086 - In real life: Steve Resnick. Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null 0x2b |~ 0x2b, THAT is the question. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------