From: afn03257 AT freenet2 DOT afn DOT org (Daniel P Hudson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++
Date: 3 Feb 1997 00:54:19 GMT
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <5d3cvr$o8p@huron.eel.ufl.edu>
References: <19970201 DOT 123135 DOT 4847 DOT 1 DOT chambersb AT juno DOT com>
Reply-To: afn03257 AT afn DOT org"Dan"
NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet2.afn.org
NNTP-Posting-User: afn03257
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

chambersb AT juno DOT com (Benjamin D Chambers) wrote:
>afn03257 AT freenet3 DOT afn DOT org (Daniel P Hudson) writes:

>>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.
>>Now, judging from the rest of your post may I ask you a
>>question? Were you born in an primarily English speaking
>>community or is it a second langauge? Your writting
>>is fine, but your interpretation of my statements is
>>alarming.

>Please don't make such guesses based on E-Mail.  IMHO, his

 It wasn't a REAL guess, but it was SARCASM. E-mail? This was a usenet
 post and E-mail.

>interpretations were perfectly logical, not to mention the fact his

 Really Ben? So saying Borland has bugs, but fixes them fairly fast is 
 saying it is bug free? I'm sorry, I must be confused somehow.
 Let's see, having bugs is being bug free, Ok I've got that part now,
 I think. That is sarcasm, for the sarcastic impaired.

>English seemed far more correct than yours.

 You know, I'd of sworn I wrote "Your writing is fine, but..."
 in that paragraph somewhere, I must be getting forgetful or something. 
 
 Now, As soon as you can point out where I claim BC++ is bug free, let
 me know. Oh, and what was his other comment? Turbo Pascal or something
 wasn't it? That's perfectly logical right? I mean I say GCC had trouble
 conforming to ANSI C, and your natural response would be, well TP
 doesn't conform to ISO Pascal, right? Give me a break. You can't
 seriously believe his arguments were logical. Pascal wasn't even in
 the conversation, bugs, GNU, DJGPP, and Borland's C(++) compilers were.

 Look, Eli made a comment that was IMHO, more than a little misleading,
 so I made a statement giving a counter opinion, as none of these are 
 facts. The next thing I know, Dave is claiming I said something is bug
 free, when what I said is DJGPP w/GCC is about as buggy as Borland was
 when it only targeted one platform, and that Borland has always made
 patches available fairly quickly via their www and ftp sites. That's a
 plain and simple opinion, there is no hidden message saying either are
 bug free there. I also said it is possible to patch software with
 a debugger to which he asked what planet I was from. Silly me,
 I thought that's what they were for, debugging software.


 Being confused about my statements is one thing, but for someone else
 to try and claim the confusion is logical is another. Logic? Let's
 not even start that, Ben. I've taken standardized tests all my life,
 and the results are ALWAYS the same. I exceed very well in logical
 areas, and score low in abstract/creative areas. I scored in the 
 Nations top 10% for the California Critical Thinking Test, and
 I will stake my life on this, Dave's interpretations of my statements 
 were in no way logical. They were invalid conclusions from my 
 statements. They were Valid if, AND ONLY IF, I had made my statements
 and Eli's which I did NOT. I never claimed either piece of software was
 Bug Free, However, Eli did say in his opinion GCC w/DJGPP was the
 cleanest [paraphrasing] compiler he had seen. However,
 Eli != Dan will always evaluate to TRUE.
 [Trying to ada little topical discussion here.] ;-)