At 08:32 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
> > For more than half of those languages, there doesn't exist a (at
> > least serious) DOS implementation.
> > You rather have to use what is available, and that is fairly limited...
>
>There is easily an implementation for more than half of those, but
>often
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
>>2012/4/6, Alex :
>>
>> > Just to be clear, which is the best Pascal version available to date
>> > for FreeDOS?
>
> Well, I don't know...
> I used 3.02 on DOS for a long time, [xyz] would be clear
> advantages over 3.0. And it was still r
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 03:57 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>>
>>On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
>> > At 02:59 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>> >
>> >>Also see Gautier's "Transparent Language Popularity Index" (updated
>> >>each month):
>> >
At 05:05 PM 4/6/2012, Zbigniew wrote:
>2012/4/6, Alex :
>
> > Just to be clear, which is the best Pascal version available to date
> > for FreeDOS?
>
>Perhaps TP 3.0 - maximal effect taken out of minimum of code?
>
>#v+
>Turbo Pascal 3 for MS-DOS was released in September 1986. Being
>version 3, th
At 04:45 PM 4/6/2012, Alex wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> > 16-bit is dead, no machines are made purely 16-bit anymore. AMD64 long
> > mode doesn't (properly) support 16-bit at all, and popular compilers
> > like GCC never cared to support it. Also, people hate it, so
2012/4/6, Alex :
> What, in your view, are the best production-ready languages currently
> available to FreeDOS users?
Don't forget various Forth variants.
> By production-ready I also mean that they must have a minimal set of
> libraries...
Depends, what actually you mean by "minimal set of li
2012/4/6, Alex :
> Just to be clear, which is the best Pascal version available to date
> for FreeDOS?
Perhaps TP 3.0 - maximal effect taken out of minimum of code?
#v+
Turbo Pascal 3 for MS-DOS was released in September 1986. Being
version 3, there were lesser releases prior to it and flashier
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Rugxulo wrote:
> 16-bit is dead, no machines are made purely 16-bit anymore. AMD64 long
> mode doesn't (properly) support 16-bit at all, and popular compilers
> like GCC never cared to support it. Also, people hate it, so a lot of
> C code uses 32-bit-isms, sadly.
At 03:57 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> > At 02:59 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
> >
> >>Also see Gautier's "Transparent Language Popularity Index" (updated
> >>each month):
> >>
> >>http://lang-index.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > Sorry, but as
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 02:59 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>
>>Also see Gautier's "Transparent Language Popularity Index" (updated
>>each month):
>>
>>http://lang-index.sourceforge.net/
>
> Sorry, but as far as programming for (Free)DOS is concerned, that
> li
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Alex wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
>
>> And what exactly do you mean by "GUI as development tool". That's a
>> term that doesn't make any sense to me at least...
>
> What I meant was simply a tool for developing GUI-based appli
At 02:59 PM 4/6/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>Also see Gautier's "Transparent Language Popularity Index" (updated
>each month):
>
>http://lang-index.sourceforge.net/
Sorry, but as far as programming for (Free)DOS is concerned, that
list is completely irrelevant...
Ralf
--
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Alex wrote:
>
> The discussion is getting interesting. I have changed the subject of
> this thread to Programming languages in FreeDOS, if you dont't mind.
>
> What, in your view, are the best production-ready languages currently
> available to FreeDOS users?
>
Has anyone tried Lua in DOS?
In theory Lua is supposed to run nicely on all platforms, but how well
does it play with the DOS environment specifically? I know, it all
depends on the availability of libraries/modules. So let me rephrase
the question: does anyone know of Lua extensions for the DOS
en
El 06/04/2012 03:57 p.m., Alex escribió:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
>
>> And what exactly do you mean by "GUI as development tool". That's a
>> term that doesn't make any sense to me at least...
> What I meant was simply a tool for developing GUI-based applications.
>
At 01:27 PM 4/6/2012, Alex wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
>
> > And what exactly do you mean by "GUI as development tool". That's a
> > term that doesn't make any sense to me at least...
>
>What I meant was simply a tool for developing GUI-based applications.
Well,
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 12:06 PM 4/6/2012, Eric Auer wrote:
>>DJGPP is a free open DOS port of GNU C/C++ and OpenWatcom C is
>>also pretty open. None of the Turbo things are open, although
>>some were free in the Borland Software Museum for a while. Now
>>you hav
Hi!
> Actually, what I had in mind when I asked about GUIs was just GUIs
> themselves, not application using them. But it was nice to see...
> The starting point of my exploration on DOS-based GUIs was:
> http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0503736/php/drdoswiki/index.php?n=Main.GallDosGui
> My inte
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> And what exactly do you mean by "GUI as development tool". That's a
> term that doesn't make any sense to me at least...
What I meant was simply a tool for developing GUI-based applications.
At 12:48 PM 4/6/2012, Alex wrote:
>Any idea why OpenGEM is the only GUI environment listed on the
>FreeDOS website under the category GUIs? To be fair, I must say that
>if you look hard withing the website you do find the reference to
>other GUIs, such as the Icon GUI. So why OpenGEM is the only
El 06/04/2012 02:36 p.m., Eric Auer escribió:
> Hi :-) A nice thread to ponder some free alternatives for
> all those fine classic DOS programs from "back then" :-)
>
>> Rugxulo: What was DOS most famous for?"
>>
>> In office software: Lotus 1-2-3 *and clones), DBase 3 and 3.5,
>>
At 12:06 PM 4/6/2012, Eric Auer wrote:
>Harbour / xHarbour are free DBase Clipper (database scripting
>language compiler?) clones, a bit bulky afair but portable :-)
>See also their harbour-project.org web site :-)
First of all Harbour and xHarbour are pretty much two completely
different proje
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Marco Achury wrote:
>
> El 06/04/2012 01:25 p.m., Eric Auer escribió:
>
> Hi!
>
> Can someone please tell me what are the best GUIs available for FreeDOS?
>
> Naturally, this is a double question, since GUIs fall into two categories:
>
> 1) Text-mode GUIs
> 2) Graph
Hi :-) A nice thread to ponder some free alternatives for
all those fine classic DOS programs from "back then" :-)
> Rugxulo: What was DOS most famous for?"
>
> In office software: Lotus 1-2-3 *and clones), DBase 3 and 3.5,
> Paradox, QuattroPro, Javelin, MS Proje
El 06/04/2012 01:25 p.m., Eric Auer escribió:
> Hi!
>
>> Can someone please tell me what are the best GUIs available for FreeDOS?
>>
>> Naturally, this is a double question, since GUIs fall into two categories:
>>
>> 1) Text-mode GUIs
>> 2) Graphical GUIs
>>
>> So, which GUI(s) would you recommend
Hi!
> Can someone please tell me what are the best GUIs available for FreeDOS?
>
> Naturally, this is a double question, since GUIs fall into two categories:
>
> 1) Text-mode GUIs
> 2) Graphical GUIs
>
> So, which GUI(s) would you recommend for each category?
Maybe unrelated but: File Maven i
Hi all,
Can someone please tell me what are the best GUIs available for FreeDOS?
Naturally, this is a double question, since GUIs fall into two categories:
1) Text-mode GUIs
2) Graphical GUIs
So, which GUI(s) would you recommend for each category?
Alex
27 matches
Mail list logo
