Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/02/03/14:01:35
cigna AT helios DOT phy DOT OhioU DOT Edu (Dave Cigna) wrote:
>Daniel P Hudson <afn03257 AT afn DOT org "Dan"> wrote:
>>cigna AT helios DOT phy DOT OhioU DOT Edu (Dave Cigna) wrote:
>>>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.
>Yes, it matters. Over in rec.audio.* you'll find a whole class of
>people that spend half of their time reading Stereo Review and studying
>manufacturers specs. They spend the other half of their time arguing
Please, find me an acurate review such as the ones you discuss
for BC++ and GNU C++? There is no such item.
>which specs are important. I take audio seriously, and when I'm
>looking for new gear I *listen* to everything I can and then decide
>which sounds best with the type of music I listen too in my living
>room.
So if you heard that the new Pioneer's were not adequately ventalated,
even though you felt they sounded the best, you'd buy it anyway, and
find the ventalation problem out 3 months down the line when the
solder melted off the circuit boards, right? You go ahead and do
something so incredibly stupid without looking into the claims.
Be my guest.
However, that is irrelevant...
We're not talking about specs, we are talking about BUGS. These
generally aren't purposefully part of the system.
Nonetheless, you have made comments about what you think I am.
Now it is only fair that I turn the tide on you.
What errors did you experience using BC++? Which version.
And what exactly caused them?
This is the info you wanted from me about G++/DGGPP, so I would like to
see the same info from you about BC++, unless you just read about the
errors. Kind of hard to do isn't it? I mean it is real easy to remember
experiencing errors, but rather hard to recall the exact error and
what was going on when it happened.
>Truth is, I don't really care who has a bigger penis, and I have little
Let me get this strait, you said my claims were wrong and now you
claim you don't actually care? Does the term 'liar' mean anything to
you? Why did you start into this conversation again? And size has
absolutely nothing to do with this, nor does being better. I said both
compilers are about on par with bugs. You are the one who seems to
think that translates into BC++ is better. I never made a statement as
to which compiler is better, because the answer changes for every
project you do. Of course, this isn't the first time you've accused me
of saying someting I didn't, so I don't expect you to understand.
>patience for specsmanship. If you have some real experience in the
>trenches then share it with us. Otherwise...
With what? You expect me to start listing Bugs from over the years?
Get a life. GNU Documents the errors, why would I want to post
something that is public? Borland also documents theirs.
>>>You've made two broad claims:
>>
>> Are you sure?
>Yeah. The keyword is broad. You've made a multitude of claims
I ask again are you sure? Where have I claimed that Borland products
were bug free? And I'll tell you where. Nowhere!
>(not all of which are consistent), but I'm sure that I got your
Consistent? You mean like bringing TurboPascal into a conversation
about two C++ compilers? That kind of consistency? I certainly haven't
been consistent like that, I admit it without thinking twice.
>major thesis right. For a second I was tempted to go back through
Which was? No, let me state it before I see soem other illogical
interpretation of my statements. As far as Bugs are concerned, Borland
and DJGPP w/ GCC are about tied. Bugs are part of any large software
product and unavoidable. Both Borland and GNU fix their bugs quickly.
>your posts and pull some quotes, but it really is not worth my time;
I'd really like to see it. I think you will find you are confusing
some of what Eli said about GCC/DJGPP with what I said about BC++.
>> And Borland ran under windows right? DJGPP runs under? Ooh what's
>> that, DOS? The more stable OS for home PC's?
>I'll call on the English I know to try to interpret this. You're
>trying to argue that BC is better because it supports a wider range
NO, and you know that is NOT what it says. Part of BC's current bug list
is indeed MS API bugs that Borland can not control. Next in line, I do
beleive it is standard netiquite policy to not flame for English grammar
or spelling as so stated in the news.hierarchy and FAQ's thereof. My
comments in that post, despite what Ben thinks, were not directed at
your English, but rather your interpretation of what I said.
Ooh, nevermind. I tell you what. You win. I'm not going to play ring
around the rosy any more. You have some weird interpretations
of what I said; however, it takes all kinds to make this world work,
so good day.
- Raw text -