From: afn03257 AT freenet3 DOT afn DOT org (Daniel P Hudson) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++ Date: 3 Feb 1997 15:09:34 GMT Lines: 109 Message-ID: <5d4v3e$q66@huron.eel.ufl.edu> References: <199701291250 DOT HAA05157 AT freenet2 DOT freenet DOT ufl DOT edu> <5cubtu$13n AT huron DOT eel DOT ufl DOT edu> Reply-To: afn03257 AT afn DOT org"Dan" NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet3.afn.org NNTP-Posting-User: afn03257 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp cigna AT helios DOT phy DOT OhioU DOT Edu (Dave Cigna) wrote: >Daniel P Hudson 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.