Open Watcom Effort Makes First Public Release

epowers writes: "It's been a long time since /. ran this story, but a few days ago the Open Watcom Project made it's first public release. It's only a binary patch targeted at 11.0a/b owners, but it's still an important roadmark on the way to the planned full open source release of both the Watcom C/C++ and Fortran compilers. Most programmers, particularly game programmers, should remember the amount of prestige id software's DOOM generated for the Watcom compiler and the sudden proliferation of 32-bit DOS games with the tell-tale "DOS/4GW" startup banner. The download is available for free, but Open Watcom requests a $1-$50 donation to help support the development effort required to remove code Sybase doesn't own and to prepare the open source release."

Comments

Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[earthforce_1]

I wonder if this will be released under a GPL license? If so, when this puppy gets into the pulic domain, there will be anything worth merging into gcc, or vice versa? Or whether the two compilers themselves will ultimately be merged into one product?

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[reynaert]

First: being released under the GPL is very different from being released in the public domain. I direct you to the Copyright FAQ.

Watcom and gcc will never be a single compiler. Watcom's primary goal is to generate optimum code for the i386/DOS. gcc's goal is to be free and as portable as possible. Many of Watcom's optimisations will most likely find their way into gcc (and DJGPP), but they will remain two distinct projects.

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[reynaert]

gcc is portable to dozens of different architectures, and can relatively easily be ported to new architectures or new languages. That's a very impressive feat.

Watcom generates very optimal code for the i386. That's also a very impressive feat.

In other words, but compilers are extremely good in what they are designed for.

How much use is this in the modern era?

[Ryu2]

Not a troll. 32-bit flat memory, etc. under DOS was cool in the early 90s, but really how viable is it in this day and age?

Re:Hmm

[reynaert]

People are already writing very gcc-specific code for Linux. I've often seen that installation instructions for other Unices begin with 'install gcc'.

Re:Hmm

[drinkypoo]

Do we really need another C/C++ compiler for linux? We'd just end up with the trouble we had on DOS with people writing silly compiler dependent code and everything a big mess.

People won't have to write compiler-dependent code to take advantages of the 386-set optimizations in the Watcom compiler. Many people will, no doubt, but eventually gcc will support that code, too, if "the people" want it.

... and please donate!

[burtonator]

Really cool that they are requesting donations. I think it is important for people to realize that Free Software (as in liberty) isn't always free (as in money).

I think that if developers would use systems like paypal more we would see in increase in free software!

Kevin

Re:Hmm

[BlowCat]

Your question contains the answer. We need another compiler for Linux so that the developers could check that they didn't occasionally wrote any "silly compiler dependent code" without having to reboot or to login to a box with the other compiler.

Actually, more often the code is not silly, it's just that some compilers accept some quirky code, and the others don't.

Re:Hmm

[sydbarrett74]

COnsidering that the quality of code produced by GCC is generally inferior to that produced by closed-source alternatives, I welcome an alternative. If the licence Sybase chooses is friendly, maybe sections can be lifted out to make GCC better, or maybe a hybrid that contains best-of-breeds. And this is by no means meant to be a troll or flamebait. I admire the many people who maintain the GCC codebase, but the general consensus amongst many is that its emitted code is not yet on a par with such compilers as Watcom and Borland (hence the importance of Kylix in its C++ version).