Article View: comp.os.os2.programmer
Article #2175Re: Are Workframe and CSet/2 useful?
From: Jeff Urlwin
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:53
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:53
27 lines
1651 bytes
1651 bytes
In article <ignacij.717700018@meishan.animal.uiuc.edu> ignacij@meishan.animal.uiuc.edu (Ignacy Misztal) writes: >I have recently received IBM CSet/2, which was ordered some time ago. >Since I have acquired GCC in form of EMX 0.8d, which works quite well >for me. As installing CSet/2 and learning Workframe seems I've blown of the Workset, even though I'd like to see what it could do for me...It's supposed to be pretty valuable for fixing compile errors, etc, *but* I use an emacs-like editor (Epsilon v 6.0 -- a professional product) which has next-error, etc. so I really don't need the WorkFrame. Overall, though, I've found the CSet/2 to be a good compiler set. (You need the TOOLKIT to access the Dos, Vio, Kbd, Win, etc functions.) There are a few bugs in IPMD that still need to be worked out, but they haven't stopped me from working...just made me reboot a couple of times. I use the set every day for work...so I think I'd be a pretty good sample. I don't (yet) program PM stuff, so I can't be a reference there... I choose CSet/2 over GCC and waiting for Borland, if that helps. Jeff -- -------------------------------------- jurlwin@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Sep29.005329.25331@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!mars.caps.maine.edu!gandalf!jurlwinReferences:
<ignacij.717700018@meishan.animal.uiuc.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!mars.caps.maine.edu!gandalf!jurlwin From: jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin) Subject: Re: Are Workframe and CSet/2 useful? Message-ID: <1992Sep29.005329.25331@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU> Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science References: <ignacij.717700018@meishan.animal.uiuc.edu> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:53:29 GMT Lines: 28