Date:	Fri, 31 Jan 1997 18:10:38 -0500 (EST)
From:	Dan <afn03257 AT afn DOT org>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.970130100327.17132O-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A32.3.95.970131180546.27196B-100000@freenet3.afn.org>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

:>
:>On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 afn03257 AT afn DOT org wrote:
:>>
:>> >to comment on something that I didn't understand.  I use GCC on
:>> >different platforms since version 1.4.0, which was about 10 years ago,
:>>
:>> Not posible unless this is 1999.
:>
:>Isn't it? ;-)
:>
:>OK, so it's 8 years (still qualifies to be ``about 10 years'', IMHO).

I know a lot of 8 year olds that would be happy to hear that. ;-)

:>> Did they debug or just find bugs? There is a difference. Dedicated >
:>programmers? You call someone who looks through those sources, having >
:>not coded it themself, to find a bug not dedicated? then to make the >
:>patch and send it in? I'd call that dedicated. 
:>
:>Dedicated is open to interpretation.  Here's mine: a dedicated programmer 
:>is somebody whose daytime job is to support a given program/package, or 
:>who invests most of their working week in it.  That is certainly NOT the 
:>case with neither most of the GNU project, nor with DJGPP.

Sounds like a job. ;-)

:>> >*Any* software has bugs, no matter how long it is developed.  In fact, 
:>> >one of the definitions of software is ``lines of codes with bugs'' ;-). 
:>> 
:>> What??
:>> That is exactly what I said, and you said I was wrong.
:>
:>We seem to agree on more and more points as we go.  So why are we still 
:>arguing?

Are we?
I didn't think we were arguing.
You made a statement about Borland being buggy.
I didn't find it to be really accurate considering, so I added my
$.04 [inflation].

:>> This is true, however, technically you could patch the comercial
:>> software yourself with a debugger.
:>
:>Incidentally, that's what I did sometimes because I couldn't get the 
:>vendor to let me have a patched version in reasonable time.  But this can 
:>hardly qualify as a good way to maintain software.

Naturally I wouldn't say this is a good way to support commercial software,
and HLL src code would be much better. Nonetheless, one point I neglected to
mention is that several of the errors reported to Borland are actually
windows API bugs which borland can't really do anything about.
I had a reply for the newsgroup but my nntp server is down again, as
usual.

- Raw text -