Date:	Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:11:32 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	afn03257 AT afn DOT org
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++
In-Reply-To:	<199701291250.HAA05157@freenet2.freenet.ufl.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.970130100327.17132O-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0

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).

>  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.

> >*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?

> 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.

- Raw text -