🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fVqEg.8385$kO3.7169@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
>"Georg" <nospam@georgpotthast.de> wrote in message
>news:1155668041.851486.297280@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I have been using Powerbasic for about 15 years now and am very
>> satisfied with it.
>>
>> The development team seems to bring out versions which have no bugs and
>> I have not yet been able to find one. I also never read in the forums
>> about a bug that Powerbasic had to acknowledge.
>
>I've been using PBabout that long, too, but there ARE bugs; but they are
>few, far between and generally obscure. Pretty close to IBM in terms of
>'bug-free-ness', unless you count documentation errors/omissions, which
>increases the number.
>
>And you CAN read about known bugs in current compiler versions with
>suggested workarounds in the PowerBase Forum.

This is one of the issues I've often wondered about with "boutique" 
BASICs (and even more so if they're freeware ones) -- How can one be 
sure there are not fairly fundamental bugs lurking around ready to 
bite, and probably when most damaging (as Murphy ensures)?

Many (most? all?) bugs are detected by users, which means that if a 
version has relatively few users then bugs are likely to go unexposed 
for quite a long time.

Of course, this problem is not restricted to BASIC.  Any other 
languages or applications with relatively few users (therefore 
"boutique" versions in this context) will suffer from the same doubts 
about hidden gotchas.  Or am I being too pessimistic?

Cheers, Phred.

-- 
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID