Remix.run Logo
WalterBright 4 days ago

I don't remember when we transitioned to 32 bit DOS extenders for the DOS compilers, but we never got any pushback for that. Developers all used 386 computers.

I remember attending a compile panel at one of the SDWest conferences. The panel members were myself, representing Zortech, along with representatives from Borland, Watcom, and Microsoft.

The first question was "do you sell a version that will work on a floppy disk only computer?" One of the other panelists responded with yes, we do. He went on to describe how the various bits could be distributed among multiple floppies, and of course it involved a lot of shuffling floppies in and out.

I was next. I replied, "Yes, we have a version that does it! It costs $200 extra and comes with a hard disk drive!"

That got a huge laugh, and that was the end of that question. I never heard it again from anybody. Sometimes, it's just time to move on!

zozbot234 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Historically there were 24-bit ("16 megs") DOS extenders that would work on a 286, though the 286's inability to seamlessly go back to real mode (which is needed for compatibility with BIOS routines) creates issues that make 286 protected mode a bit of a theoretical curiosity.

WalterBright 4 days ago | parent [-]

I used the 286 in protected mode for developing the compiler, until the 386 became available.

They were really worth it.

OS/2 ran on the 286 in protected mode. Rational Systems had a 286 protected mode system that we shipped with Zortech. Pharlap had one, too.

kragen 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That was a very intelligent answer.

I was trying to come up with some advantage of Zortech C that might justify using it now instead of an open-source compiler like DJGPP under some circumstance. Any ideas?

WalterBright 4 days ago | parent [-]

https://github.com/DigitalMars/Compiler

kragen 4 days ago | parent [-]

Oh, the answer is that Zortech C is actually open-source, and I was just being an idiot? That's wonderful! And the license here doesn't seem to have any of the questionable bits in the OpenWatcom license.

WalterBright 4 days ago | parent [-]

I wasn't able to make it fully open source until a few years ago.

kragen 4 days ago | parent [-]

And maybe people just haven't noticed? I assumed when you said "free of charge" that you implicitly meant "but not open source", and also didn't see anything on https://www.digitalmars.com/download/freecompiler.html about compiler source, and the only "license" link on that page goes to https://www.digitalmars.com/download/dmcpp.html which says, "The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license, and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license,...", so maybe you could see how I got the wrong idea!

WalterBright 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah I need to fix that. Thanks for poking at it.

kragen a day ago | parent [-]

I'm glad my comment was useful! I was worried it might annoy you.