🚀 go-pugleaf

hutch@hutch (Stephen Hutchison) writes:
>[quotes me]
... 
>>About 3 years ago I worked on a project using the iNtel 386 tools.
>>To summarize, they are awful.  It wasn't just bugs, but major architectural
>>flaws.  As for support, ....                  Want me to say it again?  :-)
>[other opinions deleted ...]
>
>The Intel 386 Codebuilder is a new product.  It isn't what you worked with
>3 years ago.  Further, the 386 tools are significantly improved over what
>you saw 3 years ago.

Thank goodness.

>                      3 years is a long time in this industry,

At the time it was a new product for a then-new chip: the 386.  I wonder
what the useful lifetime of a typical software product is?  MSDOS 3.3 is
what?... about 4 years old?  On the other hand, Turbo C seems to improve
significantly about once per year.  The old versions were completely
tolerable however.

>                                                               Tek's
>time-to-market notwithstanding.

Is that an insult?  (Check out my .signature for why it fails.)  For both
of my contracts with Tek I've been involved with development of projects
for which the time to market is rather narrow.  6-10 months for h/w and
s/w products--neither of them trivial and requiring a good deal of custom
components.


>                                 I'd discount Wally's experiences unless
>you are dealing with a toolset sold to you 3 years back.

Agreed.  But I'd think the timespan affected would extend up until about
1.5 years ago.  When was the "386 Codebuilder" released?
-----
Wally Kramer	contracted from Step Technology, Portland, Oregon 503 244 1239
wallyk@orca.wv.tek.com        +1 503 685 2658