Subject: Re: Win 95 console business
From: [email-masked] (Chad Loder)

5 Nov 1997 15:01:22 -0800
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To: Benjamin Constable <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Benjamin Constable wrote:

> I agree that NT could do with a gcc kind of compiler free with the OS. But
> expecting VC++ to come free is like expecting a free copy of suns visual
> tools with every sun box.
>  
> And have you ever used VC++? It compiles faster and makes better code than
> gcc does (last time I looked) and it has a far nicer environment.

I just tested out your assertion...it's true. Here are a couple of thoughts,
though.

How quickly do bugs get fixed in VC++? Windows Developer's Journal has a
column called "Bug++ of the month". The answer - who knows? Maybe months,
a year...with GPL'd software, it gets fixed either immediately or within
a week or so (although sometimes the fixes cause more bugs because people
sometimes patch like hell without considering that something needs to be
redesigned).

And...public and free software, once it reaches a certain critical mass, tends
to attract lots of good developers and users, and it will outstrip most of
the commercial software in its domain. Emacs certainly does...gimp is getting
there, GAP is already there, and I'm sure you could name others. So yes,
I think VC++ is much better in some respects than gcc, but they do have
different goals, and it might not be the case in the future.

-chad

----------------------------------------------------
| Chad Loder - Somerville, MA, USA                 |
| EMail:     [email-masked]                        |
| Home Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/cloder    |
----------------------------------------------------

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".