Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:11:32 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii 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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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.