| Line 1... |
Line 1... |
| 1 |
|
1 |
|
| 2 |
*** SVARCOM VS FREECOM ***
|
2 |
*** SVARCOM vs FREECOM ***
|
| 3 |
|
3 |
|
| 4 |
|
4 |
|
| 5 |
The FreeCOM project is an impressive piece of software, but there are a few
|
5 |
The FreeCOM project is an impressive piece of software, but there are a few
|
| 6 |
things that I do not like about it. SvarCOM is my attempt at addressing these
|
6 |
things that I do not like about it. SvarCOM is my attempt at addressing these
|
| 7 |
things.
|
7 |
things.
|
| Line 19... |
Line 19... |
| 19 |
IBM PC compatible machine.
|
19 |
IBM PC compatible machine.
|
| 20 |
|
20 |
|
| 21 |
|
21 |
|
| 22 |
*** NLS RESSOURCES ***********************************************************
|
22 |
*** NLS RESSOURCES ***********************************************************
|
| 23 |
|
23 |
|
| 24 |
FreeCOM requires custom NLS files. While the vast majority of FreeDOS programs
|
24 |
FreeCOM requires custom NLS ressources. While the vast majority of FreeDOS
|
| 25 |
use a single "standard" (CATS/Kitten), FreeCOM uses a different approach with
|
25 |
programs use a single "standard" (CATS), FreeCOM uses a different approach
|
| 26 |
pre-compiled NLS strings, which makes it necessary to distribute as many
|
26 |
with NLS strings built into the binary. This makes it necessary to distribute
|
| 27 |
binary blobs as there are supported languages. It also makes the translation
|
27 |
as many binary blobs as there are supported languages. Another consequence is
|
| - |
|
28 |
that FreeCOM is unable to switch its language dynamically (ie. following
|
| - |
|
29 |
changes made to the LANG environment variable). It also makes the translation
|
| 28 |
process much more difficult.
|
30 |
more difficult.
|
| 29 |
|
31 |
|
| 30 |
SvarDOS will use Kitten-style translations, like other applications.
|
32 |
SvarDOS uses CATS-style translations in a precompiled form and loads the
|
| - |
|
33 |
strings that match the LANG variable.
|
| 31 |
|
34 |
|
| 32 |
|
35 |
|
| 33 |
*** CODE COMPLEXITY **********************************************************
|
36 |
*** CODE COMPLEXITY **********************************************************
|
| 34 |
|
37 |
|
| 35 |
FreeCOM is a complex beast: it aims for compatibility with multiple compilers
|
38 |
FreeCOM is a complex beast: it aims for compatibility with multiple compilers
|
| 36 |
and supports many embedded features. This makes the code uneasy to follow and
|
39 |
and supports many embedded features. This makes the code uneasy to follow and
|
| 37 |
changes require careful testing on all supported compilers and all possible
|
40 |
changes require careful testing on all supported compilers and all possible
|
| 38 |
build variants.
|
41 |
build variants.
|
| 39 |
|
42 |
|
| 40 |
SvarDOS, on the other hand, is meant to be simple and universal. It is meant
|
43 |
SvarDOS, on the other hand, is meant to be simple and universal. It is
|
| 41 |
to be compiled with OpenWatcom only, which makes a ton of IFDEF's go away. It
|
44 |
compiled with OpenWatcom only, which makes a ton of IFDEF's go away. It also
|
| 42 |
also won't integrate features that can be reasonably implemented as external
|
45 |
does not integrate extra features that can be reasonably implemented through
|
| 43 |
tools (typically: DOSKEY). It strives to reimplement the functionality of
|
46 |
external tools (typically: DOSKEY). It strives to reimplement the baseline
|
| 44 |
MS-DOS 5/6.
|
47 |
functionality of MS-DOS 5/6.
|
| 45 |
|
48 |
|
| 46 |
|
49 |
|
| 47 |
*** NON-FREE LICENSE *********************************************************
|
50 |
*** NON-FREE LICENSE *********************************************************
|
| 48 |
|
51 |
|
| 49 |
FreeCOM code is released under the terms of a license that restrains the
|
52 |
FreeCOM code is released under the terms of a license that restrains the
|