Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/02/04/15:39:35
mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (George Foot) wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:42:01 -0800, "John M. Aldrich"
><fighteer AT cs DOT com> wrote:
>Heh... the voting could get even more annoying than the flaming ;)
>I personally also prefer DJGPP, which is why I use this newsgroup.
>However, I don't think it is fair to compare the two - I think it is
We were not comparing the two. We were discussing bugs.
>quite possible that some people will prefer one and some the other,
I don't think preference came up. Which one I prefer, depends on which
one I'm told to use during work hours. ;-)
>and personally I think we should accept this fact and leave it. This
>debate is almost as impossible as a debate between religious sects -
>there will be disagreements, and no one group will be able to convert
>all of the other.
Convert? Religion? This had nothing to do with it. How can a
conversation about the bugs present in two compilers get so blown
out of proportion?
>I am, of course, in favour of schemes to help people who are using
>DJGPP for the first time, both programming newbies and ex-Borlanders.
>But I don't really care whether people would rather use Borland
>(unless they're friends of mine). Let them do as they please, and
>hopefully they'll stop attempting to degrade DJGPP or gcc in general.
I did not degrade DJGPP, GCC, or G++. I stated they were buggy and
that Borland was not any buggier. Dave just has an active imagination
or is very confused about who Dan and Eli are as we are not one.
>(This isn't intended in any way to insult anyone who has posted
>arguing either way - it's just my opinion)
I understand, but its still involving topics that never came into
play.
- Raw text -