From: afn03257 AT freenet3 DOT afn DOT org (Daniel P Hudson) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++ Date: 1 Feb 1997 03:05:34 GMT Lines: 114 Message-ID: <5cubtu$13n@huron.eel.ufl.edu> References: <199701291250 DOT HAA05157 AT freenet2 DOT freenet DOT ufl DOT edu> Reply-To: afn03257 AT afn DOT org"Dan" NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet3.afn.org NNTP-Posting-User: afn03257 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp cigna AT helios DOT phy DOT OhioU DOT Edu (Dave Cigna) wrote: > wrote: >>Nope. GCC, has not always been 100% fully ANSI complaint, there were >>"features" that made it act differently. Read the docs on the GCC >>updates line through the times, Often and I mean very often, bug XX >>fixed to aquire more ANSI conformance, etc.. was written. >Do you have any real experience using these compilers, or have you >just read the docs thoroughly? Does that really matter? Whether I've read about the bugs or experienced them? To answer your question both, I like to read about bugs before I experience them if possible. Now, judging from the rest of your post may I ask you a question? Were you born in an primarily English speaking community or is it a second langauge? Your writting is fine, but your interpretation of my statements is alarming. >You've made two broad claims: Are you sure? > 1) Borland C is comparatively bug free, while DJGPP (GCC in > particular) is infested. Bullshit. I said Borland has always released bug fixes fairly quickly on their www/ftp site. Does that look like bug free, comparatively or otherwise, to you? I don't think so. I said that GNU has as many bugs as Borland, I never said either were bug free in any way. That clears that up I hope. > 2) Borland C is virtually ANSI compliant, while GCC has been > continually struggling to achieve ANSI compliance. You've mis-read the statements again. I never said anything about Borland's compliance. I asked how long it took to get enough bugs out of GNU C for it to be considered complaint. Borland had bugs, has bugs, and always will. However, when we side step back to DOS only Borland products, the bug count reduces drastically, and in fact, is comparable to GCC w/ DJGPP's record. Bugs are normal, not bad, but normal in large software applications. What makes them bad is when the company refuses to fix them. While GNU C w/ DJGPP is not exactly a company, they do fix them, and so did Borland as long as DOS was still being supported. Windows is another story. Some bugs are actually in the windows API and can not be fixed by Borland. Now, have you even seen a bug fix from MS under windows? Under Dos, other than DOS patches for $10? Me either. Watcom? Nope. Have you ever seen any compiler patches distributed with Simtel, night Owl or other shareware/freeware CD-ROMS? Nope? Borland's. are! >The thing is, you've offered no evidence whatsoever except for >some references to GCC bug reports and updates. (You might want >to consider the fact that Gnu's policy on such things is *ENTIRELY* >different from Borlands.) The thing is, you're talking about things I never said and therefore I'm not going to try and justify actions I never made. nor would you expect me to offer evidence about things I did not say. >I have used both compilers, as well as a variety of others, and >my own entirely anecdotal (but entirely real) experience is that >GCC is by far the most bug free compiler on the planet. (I removed >Borland from my HD and gave away the diskettes and books; I couldn't >stand it locking up or rebooting my machine anymore.) Exactly the >same goes for it's ANSI compliance. I have found that my code And Borland ran under windows right? DJGPP runs under? Ooh what's that, DOS? The more stable OS for home PC's? If your Borland C++ was DOS based then you are a rare one, kind of like me and Linux, I'm told. I've used Borland and Turbo C++ versions from 1.0 and never experienced anything like you claim unless I was using risky code, in which case I was the one who caused the crash and not the compiler, And I've already crashed under RHIDE 1.1 [forget 1.0] about 4 times, so .... Everyone raves about Linux, yet, is trashed my system 3 times and never installed correctly. I tried all 3 distributions, BTW. I gave up, Linux is obviously not for me. Maybe I'll try FreeBSD, or the Que Linux CD-ROM one day. Que book+products always seem to work well for me. However, I'm not going to claim Linux is an absolute piece of junk. Now, are you going to claim Borland's is because you couldn't get it working right? Only if your 3 years old maybe. >behaves as predicted far more often with GCC than any other compiler. >(Borland is king of added 'features' that make their products >non-standard. Just look at Turbo Pascal!) Huh? We are not talking about Pascal and BTW QPascal wasn't any more complaint, but C(++). Like it or not, anyone in c.l.c++ will tell you that between Symantec, Watcom, MSVC++, GNU C++, and Borland C++, that Borland has been following the Standard proposal the closest. Each release has supported any additions or alterations the proposal has made. Perhaps you better read what I say before you accuse me of saying things I didn't, and perhaps you better learn to distinguish between Borland C(++) and Turbo Pascal. Borland NEVER claimed TP was ANSI/ISO complaint did they? However, they did claim ANSI C compliance and they delivered it. In fact, if memory serves they were the first commercial vendor for the PC to offer it and to get the bugs out. MS is still working on it. If Borland is so bad, why is RHIDE like Borland's IDE? Why is TVision ported to GCC? Why are Turbo Pascal extensions attempted to be supported by GPC? I think you may have jumped on a band-wagon without knowing any facts first. GCC is a great product, but being hyped up like BatMan, doesn't make it superior. >>This is true, however, technically you could patch the commercial >>software yourself with a debugger. >What planet are you from? You might want to answer this one yourself after your two false assumptions there, Mac. I have patched commercial software using debug before, it is POSSIBLE! In fact, I patched EDIT using ASCII coding techniques for machine code in EDIT. It is utterly amazing what one can do when one is determined. Granted I would have preferred HLL src code to patch, I got the task accomplished just the same.