Date:	Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:38:54 -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.3.91.970127164140.9059A-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A32.3.95.970127143211.12329A-100000@freenet3.afn.org>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

:>
:>On 27 Jan 1997, Daniel P Hudson wrote:
:>
:>DJGPP is *not* just GCC + more bugs.  First, there is libc which is 
:>entirely independent of GCC, and in my experience is much *less* buggy 
:>than BC.  Then there are DJGPP-ported packages of which Borland users can 
:>only dream.

I never said that is ll it is, I merely pointed out that we have to look at
DJGPP bugs AND GCC bugs.

:>> >competes with.  That's not to say that DJGPP is without bugs, but if
:>> >ou should discover one, chances are it will be fixed and patches made
:>> >available less than a week after you report it.  Usually it takes only
:>> >one or two days.

:>>  Borland HAS ALWAYS made patches avaiable very quickly from their 
:>>  web/ftp sites.>

:>That might be true for bugs that are simple to solve.  I have reported a 
:>couple of bugs to Borland about 3 years ago, and last time I looked they 
:>were still unsolved, although my report included a detailed script and 
:>analysis which pinpointed the exact cause of the bug.  If that was with 
:>DJGPP, I would just grab the sources and make the fixes.

I suppose you cut out my comment about the long wait for proper ANSI
complaince because?

:>>  Point in hand, Borland C++ targets DOS16, DOS32, WIN3x, WIN95, OS/2,
:>>  and NT while GCC targets DOS32 only. Therefore Borland has a lot more
:>>  code to screw-up,

:>I disagree.  You should count the code size per dedicated programmer, not
:>the sheer size of the package.  If you do that, you will see that DJGPP

In that case, GNU C definately looses out since Borland's products are only 
coded by a few employees and GNU CC is coded by the world.

:>has much more code per programmer, and therefore should be more buggy, not

Umm, no I won't, maybe if you only count the original coders, however, as
you said many people contribute to debugging GNU C therefore, GNU C has
many more coders than the original design team.

:>less.  But in reality, DJGPP has less bugs.  I submit that the fact that
:>the sources are free to be browsed and edited make debugging easier and
:>improve the product faster, because everyone who's interested can look

My point exactly.

:>>  GCC and DJGPP are as buggy as the old Borland DOS based
:>>  systems were. Large software packages are going to have bugs, there
:>>  is no way around it.
:>
:>Yes, there is: get the sources, debug them, submit the analysis to the
:>maintainers, talk to them and have the problem solved in a few days.  With
:>a commercial product, you cannot do that, at least in my experience. 

No there isn't, GNU C sources have been under the GPL for some time and it
still has bugs. Just look at the gnu.* hierarchy to read up on 3 or 4 of
them a week.

- Raw text -