🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools
Article #608

Re: Borland C++ 3.1 vs Microsoft C/C++ 7.0

#608
From: David Abbott
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:02
40 lines
2918 bytes
Richard Kooijman (Richard.Kooijman@dnpap.et.tudelft.nl) wrote:

: Now we are using C 6.0, which is as bug ridden as C 7.0 (a bit less
: in fact, but they are both NOT professional compilers, but
: over-priced do-it-yourself tools).

: I admit we don't have 6.01 or 6.0A but Microsoft Netherlands wants you
: to specifically point out where the bugs are in the compiler
: otherwise you don't get a update. Go figure, that isn't our job!
: We paid for a compiler but get something with bugs WE have to find!

You want some bugs,  just take a look at the file cl-7-bug.zip in the
c directory of the SIMTEL20 msdos archives.  It has half a dozen or so 
small demonstration files which show up serious bugs in MSC 7.0 and
6.0.  According to the author,  all the demonstration files work with 
C 6.01,  none work with C 7.0,  and some don't work with C 6.0. That's
right,  some of the bugs in 6.0 that were fixed in 6.01 are back again
in 7.0.  That sort of thing is unforgivable really. 

By the way,  is that "get an update only if you can document a bug" a
general Microsoft policy,  or somehting peculiar to Microsoft
Netherlands?  Perhaps someone from Microsoft may care to comment!

I havn't been following this thread,  but let me say I'm not trying
to promote Borland C++ either. 
Any company releasing a huge program like that with such a pathetic
installation program needs to re-organise its priorities just a
little.  I keep thinking they've got to do it better soon,  but alas
each new release uses the same  old "you work out exactly how
much space your selections will take,  then feed in every disk
(whether its needed or not) and I'll install it for you but if you're
wrong and end up just 1K short of space,  I'll delete everything for
you and you can start all over again" program! I could go on and on
about all the deficiencies in Borland's install program but you've
probably got the general idea by now!

--
David Abbott                | Email: dfa@rabbit.physiol.unimelb.edu.au
School of Physics & Dept. of Physiology | Phone: +61-3-344-5465
The University of Melbourne, Australia. | Fax:    Available on request.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1h5luvINNpc5@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU!rabbit.physiol.unimelb.edu.au!dfa
References: <richard.724767664@dutepp13>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU!rabbit.physiol.unimelb.edu.au!dfa
From: dfa@rabbit.physiol.unimelb.edu.au (David Abbott)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer,comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland C++ 3.1 vs Microsoft C/C++ 7.0
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer,comp.windows.ms.programmer
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:02:39 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne
Lines: 40
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1h5luvINNpc5@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
References: <richard.724767664@dutepp13>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rabbit.physiol.unimelb.edu.au
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]