🚀 go-pugleaf

I am a heavy user of MSC/C++ 7.0 with patches, and have been since it came 
out.  I'm programming a very large system (100+ source files, executable in
excess of 250K, 3 large DLLs, graphics/computationally-intensive, and a BIG
user of memory and DASD), and have mysteriously failed to hit One Single Snag
in the compiler, linker, or memory management!  Damn!  My product works!  I
must be doing something All Wrong, huh, since, by golly, I'm using the dread
Incredibly Buggy and slow (2.5 minutes compile and link my ENTIRE app) MSC7,
and have had absolutely No problems with it which could not be ultimately
traced to my own error!  WHAT AM I DOING WRONG, MICROSOFT???  Can someone out
there please help me?  At this rate, if my product comes in late, I may even
have to take the blame MYSELF!

On the semi-serious side, I, also, think the PWB bites, and use an outboard
editor and command-line compile (in a window, though... not quite _that_
gluttonous for punishment!).  I've used BC++ 3.0, and just got (haven't yet
installed) 3.1 with OWL and Application Frameworks, and find Borland's
products to be quite good, too.  But.  MSC has historically given me more
stable .EXEs, better optimized, especially for larger projects.  We shall
see whether that still pertains, as I intend to do my new product under BCC
as a testcase.

It's apparently just as easy to get opinionated to the point of bigotry in
the compiler arena as it is in languages.  I would simply offer the advice
of a few years in the business, that you look first to your design and code
for problems before trying to blame the compiler.  Calls to mind an old saw
heard in reference to housebuilding:  "It's a poor workman who blames his
tools."... 

Happy holidays to all,
Bill Whedon   whedon@netcom.com



-- 
-- If I ain't programmin' I ain't awake! --