lynx-dev Win32 compilers

[Wayne Buttles]

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Foteos Macrides wrote:

>       I would appreciate some substantive discussion of the pros and cons
> for choosing among the various compilers for Windows 95 systems.

I used Borland 4.52 because it is what I had at the time.  It compiles
fairly fast and takes up less than 100 meg of my hard drive.  I also know
it fairly well.  The gnu tools were not quite ready when I started out, or
I might have chosen those.  I was also worried because the original win32
gnu stuff required special dlls.  Now days the gnu stuff may be swell, but
I am already tooled up with Borland. 

If Borland is a source of irritation for the lynx community, maybe I
should just pack up.  When I started, tinkering with lynx was fun.  Lately
it has become more of a channel for abuse from people who feel that they
are more capable than I.  I already know my skills are limited and
constant reminders are just offensive.  I was just doing the best I could
to offer something to others that wasn't available while having a little
fun.  

Wayne